Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

British War Pensioners Resident Overseas

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Social Security what is now the value in terms of Canadian and Australian currencies, respectively, of the war pensions paid to a British war pensioner resident in Canada and Australia on the assumption that he is married with two children and 100 per cent. disabled; and what is the pension paid in these countries to their own war pensioners in similar circumstances.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Charles Loughlin): On the assumptions made in the Question, a private who did rot qualify for any supplementary allowances would get just over 23 dollars a week in Canada and 18 dollars 96 cents a week in Australia. I understand that in similar circumstances these countries would pay their own pensioners about 92 dollars and 18 dollars 80 cents respectively. There has always been a wide disparity between pensions paid to Canadian war pensioners and British war pensioners resident in Canada.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the long-standing disparity to which the hon. Member has referred and the special problems of war pensioners, arising from the high cost of living, particularly in Canada, will not he at least restore to British war pensioners in these countries the 14 per cent. cut that they suffered as a result of devaluation last November?

Mr. Loughlin: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, but the

real value of British war pensions have increased somewhat since 1963, even taking into account devaluation. As I told the right hon. Gentleman in a recent Adjournment debate, as far as it is humanly possible where any of our war pensioners are suffering hardship we are introducing procedures to meet it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Social Security whether, in view of the fact that war disability pensions payable to disabled former members of the Brigade of Gurkhas resident in Nepal have had their pensions maintained at an increased cost in sterling, she will reconsider her decision not to take parallel action in respect of those British war pensioners resident overseas for whom she is responsible.

Mr. Loughlin: No, Sir. Neither British nor Gurkha disability pensions have been changed in terms of the currencies in which they are expressed. In fact, the sterling cost of Gurkhas disability pensions is now less than before our devaluation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not a fact that the Ministry of Defence have increased the sterling provision in respect of each Gurkha war disability pension in order to retain its rupee value? Does not the hon. Member think it a little shocking that a social service Department should take less care of people for whom they are responsible than does the Secretary of State for Defence?

Mr. Loughlin: I do not think that we take less care of pensioners than does anyone else. I answered the Question on the Order Paper.

Ministry Offices (Rural Areas)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Social Security what plans she has for closing local offices of her Department in small country towns; and whether she will take into account the importance of a local office to those living in rural areas.

The Minister of Social Security (Mrs. Judith Hart): I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 7th March to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). I can assure him that account will be taken of the needs of those living in rural areas.—[Vol. 760, c. 158–9.]

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the great concern that exists in the South-West because the Government appear to give so little attention to the interests of country people? The British Legion in particular is very disturbed at these rumours.

Mrs. Hart: There are no absolute proposals at the moment for anything in the region of the hon. Member's constituency. I can give him an assurance that we take the utmost account of two factors—first, that the great mass of our arrangements are now done by post and, secondly, that there is frequently a need for a caller office whatever kind of reorganisation we make, and this need is given a very high priority.

Mr. William Price: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of the larger towns also being allowed to keep their offices, especially in view of the fact that the amalgamation of the Rugby office with the Coventry office has been a total disaster?

Mrs. Hart: I am sorry to hear that. My hon. Friend must tell me more about it. I emphasise that two factors are involved—first, reorganisation of what might be called the backroom work and, secondly, the need to ensure that we supply whatever is needed by way of caller facilities for the public. When we reorganise the backroom work it does not necessarily follow that there is any deprivation whatever to the public in terms of caller facilities.

Low Income Families (Assistance)

Mr. Barnes: asked the Minister of Social Security if she will make a statement on her plans for a general entitlement campaign to ensure that low-income families are aware of the various forms of help available to them.

Mrs. Hart: A number of forms of publicity are being prepared. In particular, we are hoping to send these families a leaflet listing all the benefits which are available and telling them where to go for help.

Mr. Barnes: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that mounting pressures on low income families and also the low uptake of benefits in some areas make this campaign very urgent? Can she give the

House an assurance that this leaflet will be backed up by adequate Press and television publicity to urge people to take advantage of it?

Mrs. Hart: Yes, I have that very much in mind. I envisage that the leaflet will be backed up by Press, television and radio. I am anxious to get the leaflet absolutely right. It is important that it should be completely understandable by people and be very clear in the advice it gives them. I envisage that in the early summer—in early June—we should be able to get this going.

Retirement Pension (Purchasing Power)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Social Security by how much the purchasing power of the retirement pension has decreased to date since it was last raised.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): Just over 2 per cent., as measured by the rise in the Index of Retail Prices; it is now worth about 18 per cent. more in real terms than in October, 1964.

Mr. Ridsdale: Does the Minister realise that the standard of living of pensioners is being affected by devaluation probably more than that of anyone else in the community? Cannot he ensure that the Government save a little of the hundreds of millions of pounds needed to pay for the increase in the number of civil servants since 1964?

Mr. Pentland: The hon. Gentleman should realise that we are now keeping the number of civil servants down in proportion. What he never seems to realise, and what keeps coming up again and again, is that, when we last increased the pension six months ago, we made it 20 per cent. higher than it was when we took office in 1964.

Devaluation (Retirement Pensioners)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Social Security if she will take steps to help those retirement pensioners above the supplementary benefit level against the effects of devaluation.

Mr. Pentland: We have clearly indicated how we propose to protect the most vulnerable against the effects of devaluation, and in relation to old people in our society, we shall be increasing supplementary benefits in the autumn.

Mr. Ridsdale: But despite what he says, does the hon. Gentleman realise that many elderly people, especially those over 70, have to go without their daily help because of the increase in the price of this service?

Mr. Pentland: The daily help is another matter, but we have made it perfectly clear, as has the Prime Minister, that the most vulnerable in our society—those on supplementary benefits—will be protected by an increase in the autumn.

Retirement Pensioners (Fuel Costs)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Social Security what her inquiry into fuel costs relating to retirement pensioners has shown.

Mr. Victor Yates: asked the Minister of Social Security if she will make a statement on the results of her inquiry into the effect of fuel costs on the standard o living of pensioners.

Mrs. Hart: By arrangement with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, an inquiry is being made into the comparative costs of different methods of space heating for elderly people. I shall study the results when I have them.

Mr. Eadie: Has my right hon. Friend's Department given any consideration to the question of surplus coal stocks? Should not some consideration be given, as a matter of social policy, to reducing those stocks to benefit some old-age pensioners?

Mrs. Hart: I answered a Question about this some weeks ago. This problem is really a matter for the Minister of Power but, in relation to Scotland, the problem often is that the surplus fuels are not those which are suitable for domestic use.

Mr. Yates: In view of the fact that a number of old-age pensioners in Birmingham have been under the mistaken impression that they could send their fuel bills to the Ministry for payment, when

my right hon. Friend completes her inquiry will she see that they are in no doubt about their rights, since this burdensome misconception is unfortunate?

Mrs. Hart: A number of cases in various parts of the country have been reported to my Ministry and appropriate action has been taken. As a result of discussions within my Ministry, I am concerned to ask this open-ended question and to see what the inquiry shows. This is a matter of asking the right questions and not prejudging what the answers will be. I know that my hon. Friend will be the first to agree with that approach.

Mr. Worsley: Will the right hon. Lady ensure that, among the right questions, the whole matter of regional differentiation will be kept in mind, particularly the difference in costs of fuel in different areas and the different need for fuel according to climate?

Mrs. Hart: Some of these are particularly matters for the Minister of Power. I am concerned to discover and establish scientifically the effect of living in different environments and of the different kinds of freedom or restriction of choice of fuel upon the costs faced by old people.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the main reasons for this problem is that the general element of 5s. allowed in supplementary benefits is far too low? Would she consider stepping this up to a more realistic level, which would help the old folks considerably in winter?

Mrs. Hart: The whole question of what is a realistic level is bound to depend on the kind of choice available to old people and particularly to the kind of limitation of choice which they face when they are, perhaps, rehoused by a local authority, and the kind of house which uses a particular kind of fuel. These are the sorts of questions which led me to initiate the inquiry.

Prescription Charges

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Social Security what administrative machinery will be set up in her Department to deal with matters arising from prescription charges.

Mr. Heffer: asked the Minister of Social Security what arrangements will


be made, when prescription charges are introduced, to help people on supplementary benefit and low incomes to meet the charges.

Mr. Archer: asked the Minister of Social Security whether all those in receipt of supplementary benefit will have to pay the prescription charges and then obtain a refund.

Mr. Winnick: asked the Minister of Social Security whether people receiving supplementary benefit will have to call at her Department's local offices to obtain help with the cost of prescriptions.

Mr. Will Griffiths: asked the Minister of Social Security by what means people under 65 years of age in receipt of supplementary pension or allowance will be able to obtain from her Department help with the payment of prescription charges.

Mrs. Hart: I am glad to say that it is proposed that the Regulations which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will be laying before the House after completion of discussions with the professions concerned should provide that most persons receiving supplementary benefits, and those who are living below supplementary benefit level or at about that level who are in work, can be issued with certificates by my Department authorising them and their dependants to claim exemption from the charge, instead of claiming refunds for each prescription. Similar arrangements will apply to war pensioners in respect of charges incurred for treatment of their accepted war disablement.

Mr. Eadie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the criticisms of prescription charges is administrative costs? Would she comment on the administrative costs of this scheme?

Mrs. Hart: The fact that we have now been able to provide for exemptions rather than refunds for broadly the hardship categories will, of course, mean that the administrative costs for my Department are much smaller. This, however—I must tell the House this frankly—has not been my prime consideration: my main object has been to ensure that people on extremely low incomes do not have to apply continually for refunds but can get an exemption from the charges.

Lord Balniel: First, will the scheme for exemptions from prescription charges come in simultaneously with the introduction of the charges? Second, will women retirement pensioners between 60 and 65 be exempt from the charges?

Mrs. Hart: The answer to the first part of that supplementary is that, in a number of cases among the categories which I have mentioned today, the exemptions will come into operation as soon as the prescription charges do. There will inevitably be some cases—for example, the family in work—where we shall have to wait for the first application for a refund in order to provide the exemption. Secondly, in relation to supplementary benefits, there will inevitably be a little time—a month or two—during which we will work through all the cases on supplementary benefit. But the main answer is yes, subject to these qualifications. The answer to the second part of the question is that it will depend, of course, on whether or not the woman comes within the categories which I have already mentioned—whether she is on supplementary benefit or not.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: In her original reply, my right hon. Friend talked about "most of those" on supplementary benefits. Could she give us the percentage and say why all on supplementary benefits cannot be treated in this way?

Mrs. Hart: The only exception—I cannot give a percentage, because it fluctuates—will be, clearly, someone who is on supplementary benefit for a very short period. A transient case, perhaps, who receives benefit this week but not next week or the week after is out of that range, and it would be impracticable to give him an exemption. It is only the short-term and transient cases which will not be included.

Retirement Pensions

Mr. Worsley: asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will seek to introduce arrangements whereby a man on reaching retirement can opt to forego his state retirement pension payable under the National Insurance scheme on the understanding that this pension can be paid with any necessary adjustments to his wife, in addition to her normal widow's pension, if she becomes widowed.

Mr. Pentland: Such a personal option would involve additional administrative costs and complexities which could not be justified for individuals already more favourably placed than the general body of retirement pensioners.

Mr. Worsley: But would not the hon. Gentleman be a little more constructive about this proposition? Would he not see that this is considered in the general review which is supposed to be taking place, since it would bring into the scheme a desirable element of flexibility?

Mr. Pentland: No, I cannot agree, because the only people who could take advantage of such a scheme are those with considerable resources in addition to the National Insurance retirement pension, and perhaps not all of them would want to allocate their pension in this way.

Part-time Workers (Employers' Insurance (Contributions)

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will consider taking steps to remedy the anomaly whereby employers pay full insurance contributions for part-time workers.

Mr. Pentland: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) on 4th March.—[Vol. 760, c. 23.]

Mr. Goodhew: But is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this is a great disincentive, as is the Selective Employment Tax, to those who might otherwise employ part-time workers? This particularly applies to the elderly. Will he not consider this matter again?

Mr. Pentland: No, Sir. We do not think that it would be a disincentive. In fact, if we shifted the contribution to the employer, it could discourage him from employing part-time workers.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will my hon. Friend consider a review of the part-time workers in newsagents, for example, in which trade the hours fall just above the 21 hours a week, which very much affects the payment for S.E.T. purposes in particular? Could he reconsider the period fixed for employment?

Mr. Pentland: If my hon. Friend wishes to put a Question about particular types of employment, I will do my best to answer it.

Persons of Pensionable Age (Register)

Mr. Higgins: asked the Minister of Social Security what studies have been made as to the desirability of compiling a comprehensive register of all those of pensionable age and over.

Mr. Loughlin: This has been considered, but is not thought to be a viable way of ensuring that entitlement to benefits is fully known, since it could not be based on any compulsory requirements to register.

Mr. Higgins: Does not the Minister agree that a register of this kind would make it easier to analyse the problems suffered by these people, and particularly those above supplementary benefit level? How many old-age non-pensioners in receipt of supplementary benefits have had their books stamped "over pensionable age"?

Mr. Loughlin: I cannot give, off-hand, the figures which the hon. Member requested in his second supplementary question. The problem about a register which would give us the information which we require is that it would have to be a compulsory register, and keeping it up to date would be a continuous process. I am not unsympathetic to the hon. Member's suggestion, but he will appreciate that we do not want a compulsory register.

Retirement Non-Pensioners

Mr. Higgins: asked the Minister of Social Security what estimates she has made of the effect of the Government's measures during the last year on the standard of living of retirement non-pensioners.

Mr. Loughlin: The effect has been to safeguard the position of those whose resources are insufficient for their requirements. In 1967 the Index of Retail Prices rose by 2½ per cent. Supplementary pensions were increased by about 6 per cent. last autumn.

Mr. Higgins: Does the Minister accept that "retirement" is a relative term? Is it not a fact that these old-age non-pensioners above supplementary benefit level have had their standard of living severely


curtailed in the last year and are likely to suffer a further 5 per cent. reduction in their standard of living next year?

Mr. Loughlin: I appreciate that the hon. Member is concerned about non-pensioners, a subject which we debated recently. I am as concerned about them as he is. He will appreciate that about 70,000 of them are in receipt of supplementary pensions. We should be delighted to receive applications from all those likely to benefit.

National Insurance Contributions (Increase)

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Social Security when the last increase in the National Insurance contribution was made without an increase in benefit.

Mrs. Hart: This has not happened previously under the present National Insurance scheme, but since enactment of the National Insurance Act, 1959 there has been provision for increasing contributions at five-yearly intervals with no accompanying benefit increases.

Mr. Fisher: On a slightly different but related point, does the right hon. Lady agree that it is perhaps rather harsh to cut the first three days' unemployment sickness benefit at a time when increased contributions will be made? Am I right in assuming that she will alter this proposal in Committee on the Bill?

Mrs. Hart: I believe that the hon. Member was not present in the House last week when I said something on this subject. I advise him, as I advised those in the House, to await the Committee stage of the Bill.

Means Tests

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will list the number of means tests at present operating in the social security field.

Mrs. Hart: Tests of means for social security benefits are operated by my Department for supplementary benefits—including repayments of National Health Service charges—under the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966, and for accommodation and pocket money provided under the Polish Resettlement Act, 1947. In addition, resources are

taken into account in considering claims for certain war pensions dependants' benefits.

Mr. Fisher: Will the right hon. Lady consider consulting her colleagues, some of whom operate a large number of means tests of various kinds, to see whether some simplification could be achieved by greater co-ordination between Departments?

Mrs. Hart: I am tremendously aware of the need for some simplification, but the hon. Member realises that one of the problems is that a number of different means tests are operated by local authorities in relation to their own functions. It is a very wide problem, but I am much concerned with the need, if we can, to achieve some simplification.

Department Pamphlet "Administration of the Wage Stop"

Mr. Worsley: asked the Minister of Social Security whether the recommendations of her Department's pamphlet, "Administration of the Wage Stop", have now been fully implemented.

Mrs. Hart: Last month the recommendations relating to the use of standard local authority wage rates, and more favourable treatment of expenses, were brought into effect. This change benefited about 14,000 claimants. The other recommendations, which demand examination of the individual circumstances of those who are wage stopped are now being introduced as rapidly as each separate case can be reviewed.

Mr. Worsley: Would the right hon. Lady indicate whether the whole of this provision will be carried out administratively or whether a regulation on the matter will be laid which we can debate?

Mrs. Hart: This is purely an administrative matter for the Supplementary Benefits Commission, just as the report was from the Supplementary Benefits Commission. If the hon. Member has any particular points in mind, he is free to write to me or to the Chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission about them.

Mr. William Hamilton: My right hon. Friend says that 14,000 will benefit. How many are in Scotland?

Mrs. Hart: A fair proportion. I do not have the figure, but the correct proportion are from Scotland. A number of people in Scotland have benefited particularly from the new assessment in relation to the rates of manual labourers, and the other recommendations, which depend upon the individual assessment of each case, will equally benefit a number in Scotland, particularly among the disabled, because in Scotland we tend to have quite a proportion of disabled persons.

Widows

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will now end the present ruling which prevents a widow with children whose husband died without paying at least 156 insurance contributions from getting any widow's benefit.

Mr. Pentland: Contribution conditions are necessary in an insurance scheme and the rule that 156 contributions shall have been paid has been a common condition for prolonged sickness benefit, retirement pension and widow's benefit since 1948. This rule, is of course, being looked at in relation to our proposals for a wage-related scheme.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: If what I am asking cannot be given in full, will the Minister seriously consider allowing these unfortunate widows to aggregate, with their late husband's contributions, any contribution which they themselves made before they were married, thus preserving the insurance principle but at least giving some of the widows some relief?

Mr. Pentland: I take the point, but, as I said, the provision to be made for women is being studied in the context of work on our wage-related pension scheme.

Lord Balniel: Will the Minister take very seriously the specific point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke)? Does he not agree that it is a very hard anomaly that, irrespective of the date of marriage or of age, some widows receive no pension whereas other widows receive a pension? May we have an assurance that that will be dealt with in the White Paper in the autumn?

Mr. Pentland: I said that I took particular notice of the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). Everything which was said by the noble Lord is being considered as part of our review at the moment.

Devaluation (Poorer Persons)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Social Security if she will make a statement on the progress made to protect the poorer sections of the community from the worst effects of devaluation; and what further steps she proposes to take.

Mrs. Hart: A Bill now before the House proposes a further increase of 3s. a week in family allowances from October, in addition to the increase this month. Supplementary benefit will also be increased in the autumn and, as my hon. Friend will know, it is proposed that the income limits for full rate rebates are to be raised with effect from the autumn.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole country will be grateful for that attempt to protect the poorer sections of the community? Is it true, as the Press reported this morning, that the Government are refusing to help to finance the project survey into national poverty? If that is the case, it is an absolutely outrageous decision.

Mrs. Hart: My hon. Friend should not judge from the rather one-sided reports in The Guardian this morning of what our intentions are. This matter is under consideration. My concern—and this will arise on a later Question—is to analyse in some depth and detail the particular circumstances which we need to take into account if we are to end poverty. I am much more concerned about knowing which line of action would be best to meet—for example, the problems of fatherless families or separated wives or partly disabled—than about any generalities, which could not assist us directly in policy-making.

Mr. Winnick: While appreciating the increase in family allowances, may I ask whether there is any chance at all that the supplementary allowances will be increased before the autumn, in view of our great anxiety about the way in which


so many poor people are having a very hard time?

Mrs. Hart: We have to make a balanced judgment on this matter. We have to take into account the fact that the increase last autumn left people in a much better position than they had ever been in before and that it was able to take into account a price rise which was expected. Next autumn will probably be about the right time to take account of those price rises which the last increase was not able to meet.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does that mean that older people living on small fixed incomes who do not receive social security benefits or rebates will not be sheltered from the effects of devaluation?

Mrs. Hart: The circumstances affecting those who are entitled to supplementary benefits are continually changing. It may be that people living on small fixed incomes will find, when we increase the supplementary benefit rates in the autumn, that some of them will then become entitled to them. They should not hesitate in the autumn, when the increases are made, to apply if they have any reason to suppose that they may be entitled to them.

Old Age Pensioners Resident Overseas

Mr. Moyle: asked the Minister of Social Security if, in view of the reduced value of the £ sterling overseas and the consequent effect on the standard of living of State old-age pensioners living overseas, she will introduce legislation which will assist them by starting the practice of granting to them increases awarded to old-age pensioners resident in this country.

Mr. Loughlin: No, Sir. Retirement pensions are payable in sterling, even where the pensioners are living abroad. We see no reason to change this long established practice or the terms under which pensions are paid to persons living abroad.

Mr. Moyle: Would my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to look at this matter again? Is it not true that by living abroad these old-age pensioners are considerably lightening the burden on our social services? Should not we return to them a small part of the saving that they

are making to us, and would not the adoption of the suggestion in my Question do this?

Mr. Loughlin: The present rule has applied since the inception of the present scheme. The British social security system is based on, and is related to, the conditions which apply in this country; and we feel that we must continue with the present practice.

Mr. Paget: In exceptional cases where pensioners must live abroad, perhaps for health reasons—for example, if they cannot stand our climate—would my hon. Friend reconsider the position?

Mr. Loughlin: That would be a difficult thing to do.

Mr. Paget: Why?

Mr. Loughlin: One would become involved in the problem of establishing the facts. If public money is being spent we must ensure that it is spent in accordance with the wishes of Parliament. If a person claimed that, for health reasons, he had to live abroad, we would need to set up machinery to confirm his claim.

Supplementary Benefits

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of Social Security in view of the Government's policy of allowing increases in rents, rates, fares and prices, which fall heavily upon those in receipt of social security benefits and supplementary allowances, whether she will now review these payments and issue further advice and publicity to explain to recipients how they can claim supplementary benefits to offset any reduction of their living standards.

Mrs. Hart: The rates of supplementary benefit are to be increased in the autumn. Supplementary benefit assessments take account of increases in rent and rates. We shall continue to explain as widely as we can, the conditions for supplementary benefits and how people can claim them. National Insurance benefits in general continue to be worth considerably more than under any previous Administration.

Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that poorer families are often not seen because they cannot afford to go out, that they often cannot afford to buy


blankets for their beds or eggs for their children? As people living on £10 to £12 a week are finding it difficult to keep their heads above water—and I have used some admirable words which were uttered by my right hon. Friend in her speech last Friday—will she now agree to do something to see that these people are looked after?

Mrs. Hart: My hon. Friend is correct to quote what I said on Friday. I also said it in the House on Tuesday, although am not sure that my hon. Friend was in his place to hear me on that occasion. He will, I am sure, agree that it is absolutely essential that the public in general should understand, as I believe the House does, that family allowances, and the increases in them which will take place this month and again in October, are the means directly of assisting the very families I was mentioning. For example, a man with three children living on £12 a week will be 8½ per cent. better off as a result of these increases in family allowances.

Sir G. Nabarro: Eight-and-a-half per cent.?

Mrs. Hart: If the hon. Member for Kidderminster wishes to challenge my figures, he should get to his feet and do so.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am not the hon. Member for Kidderminster. I am the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South. Does not the right hon. Lady realise that she has stated four times this afternoon that the increases announced last autumn will more than compensate these unfortunate old people? Is she aware that that is an absolute myth in view of the tremendous increases which are following devaluation, the further increases that are taking place in the cost of living following the Budget, and the many more increases which are to come? Is it not about time that she brought her ideas up to date?

Mrs. Hart: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for misrepresenting his constituency. I would be more impressed with his argument if he had ever at any time during the period when the Conservative Party was in power urged an increase in family allowances. The increases which started in October were

the first for about 10 years. A further increase will follow closely on its heels and, whether or not the hon. Gentleman agrees, it will mean a substantial improvement in the standard of living of the very poor family in this country.

Disabled Persons

Mr. Astor: asked the Minister of Social Security if she will seek to make available allowances for constant attendance and other benefits, as large as those payable under the Industrial Injuries Scheme, to all disabled people who are not at present eligible to receive benefit under existing schemes.

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Minister of Social Security when she expects to receive a report on the Government survey on the number of disabled people; and what action she intends to take to help the disabled in the near future.

Mrs. Hart: I am anxious to find some way of helping people who are very severely disabled, irrespective of the cause of disablement, and I understand from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health that some results from the Government's survey of use to my Department can be expected in probably about 18 months. The provisions of the Industrial Injuries Scheme, however, serve special purposes and could not be extended to all disablement irrespective of its cause.

Mr. Astor: Would it be possible to extend some benefit—for example, to disabled housewives, who at present receive none—ahead of the results of the review, which may not be known for another 18 months?

Mrs. Hart: Our planning in this matter will go concurrently with the research that is being carried out. We will need the results of the research, in that they will establish the incidence of disability among groups of people like housewives, before we can completely finalise our plans.

Lord Balniel: Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that we have waited a very long time indeed for this social security review? Can she say at this stage whether she accepts as a principle that all forms of disability should be treated alike, whether caused through


industrial injury, long-term chronic sickness or resulting from any other natural cause?

Mrs. Hart: It depends entirely on what the noble Lord means by "treated alike". There are very good reasons why the industrial injury which is encountered during work should receive a special kind of approach. At the same time, I believe that the real gap at the moment is in provision to meet chronic sickness or chronic handicap arising not through work, and particularly among housewives or congenitally handicapped children who grow up to be adults. Thus, in saying that I do not necessarily agree with the noble Lord that they should be treated alike, I wholly agree that we need provision to meet the other contingencies which we are so far not meeting.

Mr. Montgomery: Since the Minister accepts that we may have to wait another 18 months for this report, cannot something be done for these disabled people in the meantime, remembering that many of them have been badly hit by price increases and that the Prime Minister promised that the weakest members of the community would be helped following increases in the cost of living through devaluation and other measures?

Mrs. Hart: I wish to make it clear, since this may be a difficult point to understand, that the real gap in our knowledge—having accepted and agreed that there was a legitimate cause for concern here and since we did not have any facts—concerns the incidence of disability of differing degrees in the community outside the industrially and war injured. Before we can, for example, cost a scheme in accurate terms, we must know the incidence. However, that does not mean that nothing will be said on this issue in the White Paper which will be forthcoming before the end of the year.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is of the utmost importance and urgency that she accepts the principle of the Question, which itself would go a long way towards doing something for the group of people involved? Would she agree that if former Tory Administrations had accepted this principle, the problem would now be easier to solve?

Mrs. Hart: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the urgency of this matter. I would only disagree with him to the extent of saying that the general public expect much more of us than they do of Tory Administrations.

Low Income Families (Devaluation)

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Minister of Social Security what steps she intends to take to protect families with one child living at or below supplementary benefit level from the increases in prices following devaluation.

Mr. Loughlin: Where the family is receiving or entitled to receive supplementary benefit, it will, in general, be helped by the increases we propose to make in the autumn. Some of the others will stand to benefit from the changes in the rate rebate scheme which are also proposed for the autumn.

Mr. Fortescue: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that one-child families living at or below the supplementary benefit level have at least as much right to assistance as have Income Tax payers with one child, and will he not move as fast as possible towards a negative income tax scheme?

Mr. Loughlin: In our recent debate my right hon. Friend expressed great sympathy for these one-child families who are living in poverty. The hon. Gentleman knows my attitude to the scheme to which he refers, as I have expressed it clearly on about three occasions.

Mr. McNamara: Will my hon. Friend look carefully at the position of the one-child family? There is quite a degree of poverty amongst such families with low incomes. In many cases, one child is far more expensive to bring into the world than a second or third child, or subsequent children.

Mr. Loughlin: We appreciate that it is a problem, but the family allowance scheme has always excluded the first child. Where there is more than one child, we can assist the family by increasing family allowances. About 3 million children would be brought into the family allowance scheme if we included the one-child family, which makes it pretty difficult.

Departmental Research

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Minister of Social Security what research is being carried out at present within her Department; and what plans she has for more research in the future.

Mrs. Hart: My Department is continuously engaged in the examination and interpretation of statistical material available to the Ministry, and the development of techniques for obtaining analysing other relevant information.
The Department is also closely involved in the planning of the major survey of the permanently and substantially handicapped initiated by my right hon. Friend he Minister of Health.
I am at present considering what the priorities should be in relation to other specific research projects I have in mind.

Mr. Fortescue: As a result of the news last Friday, can we now be sure that all research being done in the right hon. Lady's Ministry will be very closely coordinated with that being done in the Ministry of Health?

Mrs. Hart: Indeed, this will be so. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the degree of co-ordination there is already in planning the survey of the disabled. I am quite convinced that we can all gain from even further co-ordination.

Lord Balniel: As the Government have now accepted the suggestion they have repeatedly rejected in the past of amalgamating the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Security, will they now accept this recommendation, which also we have repeatedly made, of greatly strengthening the research department of her Ministry?

Mrs. Hart: I have anticipated the noble Lord's pressure for increased research facilities, because I have been strengthening the research facilities of my Department. If the noble Lord looks at the proposals now made by the Government for the amalgamation of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Security, he will find that these proposals are rather different from those put forward by the Conservative Party, which spread a great deal wider, and more unfortunately.

Additional Pensions

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will consider taking steps to increase the additional pension earned by staying on at work after pensionable age.

Mr. Pentland: Increments to the flat rate retirement pension were improved as recently as last October, when the maximum addition which can be earned was increased from 21s. to 29s. a week.

Mr. Montgomery: Is the Minister aware that this is not actuarially fair, and that, as the trend seems to be for people to retire earlier, if he wants to encourage people to stay on after retirement age more incentives must be provided?

Mr. Pentland: No, Sir. The opportunity to earn increments has never been one of the major factors in influencing people to defer retirement until after retiring age, and the financial attractions of earnings and the ability to continue to work are, in our view, much more important.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Catering

Mr. Burden: asked the Lord President of the Council if, when powdered milk is used in tea and coffee in the Refreshment Rooms of the House of Commons, he will display warning notices to that effect.

Mr. Kitson: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will cease serving powdered milk in the refreshment rooms of the House.

Mr. Maxwell: I have been asked to reply.
Fresh milk was reintroduced for beverages from Monday, 25th March, 1968.

Mr. Burden: I am sure that all hon. Members will appreciate that statement. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that his reply also means that a slur that was being cast on many of the cows in this country will now be removed?

Mr. Maxwell: I cannot accept that remark. No slur has been cast. Powdered


milk was introduced as an economy, but it did not appear to be popular and it has been rescinded.

Mr. Kitson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that no Parliamentary Questions have ever been followed by such speedy action in this House?

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask whether powdered milk will be provided in tea and coffee in Annie's Bar?

Mr. Maxwell: I require notice of that question.

Morning Sittings

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Lord President of the Council whether, for an experimental period until the end of the current Session, he will move to amend Standing Orders to enable certain morning Sittings of the House to be devoted exclusivly to Questions on matters relating to Foreign Affairs, Labour, Board of Trade, and Scotland.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I have been asked to reply.
No, Sir.

Mr. Hamilton: In view of that reply, I almost forbear congratulating my right hon. Friend. Does he recognise that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction about the lack of opportunity hon. Members have of getting Answers from particular Departments? Would he consider setting up a small sub-committee of back bench Members, who are most interested in these matters, so that we might get some better distribution of Ministerial opportunities for answering Parliamentary Questions?

Mr. Peart: I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that in his supplementary question he has gone wider than the original Question. I will take note of what he has said; perhaps he and I can have a word together.

Sir G. Nabarro: I should like to be the first on this side to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on becoming the Leader of the House. Will he realise that after many months of painful experimentation, every quarter of the House realises that morning Sittings were a total and complete flop—[Interruption.] Oh, yes; and does he realise that the principal absentees were the members of his

own party? Will he therefore set his heart against any resumption of this totally inadequate device?

Mr. Peart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the first part of his supplementary question. I must be the servant of the House. I will take note of what the hon. Member says. I recognise that the Select Committee on Procedure, in its Report on times of Sittings of the House, did not suggest that Questions should be dealt with in morning Sittings. I must take note of that, but I must also, as is right, assess the feeling of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS

Knightsbridge Barracks (New Stables)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works for what reason inquiries are being made in Finland by his Department with regard to obtaining suitable timber for the construction of accommodation for horses at the new Knightsbridge Barracks; what circumstances have arisen to make it impossible to accommodate British Army horses by using indigenous materials; and whether the matter will now be reviewed.

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Robert Mellish): No such inquiries are being made. When the contract was let, timber from Baltic resources, among others, was specified because no suitable home grown timber was available. I am aware that home grown soft wood is now becoming available in small quantities, and I am asking my professional officers to consider in what circumstances its quantity, quality and price would make it suitable for future projects.

Sir G. Nabarro: Does the right hon. Gentleman's Answer mean that all specifications put out to tender by his Ministry will in future require, as a priority, the employment of home-produced materials, especially timber, having regard to the fact that timber is the largest single commodity import of the United Kingdom, costing us more than £200 million per annum?

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman has been very good in pursuing this question, which I fully support in principle. He


will know of the various professions involved. Our architects already know, through Parliamentary Answers to Questions, that, as Minister, I believe that the intention should be to prescribe that only British materials are used where possible.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Will the Minister say who advised him that home-grown timber was not suitable for horse boxes?

Mr. Mellish: I can only say that I have professional advisers. I understand that these horses are very fond of British wood, and chew it up.

Palace of Westminster (New Bar)

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what has been the capital cost of the new bar provided in the Palace of Westminster; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mellish: Only just over £3,000, which I regard as excellent value for a splendid job, done by my Department.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: At a time when the whole Government's efforts are devoted towards reducing consumer expenditure, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that this is the right time for this provision? Could not the same very laudable end be achieved—namely, easier access by hon. Members to Press men and vice versa—by opening the present Strangers' Bar to the Press?

Mr. Mellish: I have great regard for the hon. Member and I did not know that he was quite so reactionary. This was requested by the Lobby correspondents and agreed to by the Catering Committee, and it is only replacing that which used to be in the Palace of Westminster. I think a very good job has been done.

Mr. Shinwell: It may be that the construction of the new bar does credit to my right hon. Friend's Department, but was it really necessary to spend this money at a time like this in order to provide another drinking establishment for Lobby correspondents? Is it not true that the Press has a bar and, indeed, members of the press have several facilities which enable them to consume alcoholic liquor if they wish? Why provide the Lobby correspondents and the Press with an additional bar? Is this what the Government mean by "Parliamentary reform"?

Mr. Mellish: I do not want to get involved with my right hon. Friend on the virtues or non-virtues of alcohol. We have replaced that which used to be provided many years ago. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend complained about the bar when it was here before. We have now brought back that which used to be here, and I think it is a very useful change.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Lobby correspondents have been doing their work under almost impossible conditions for many months and that this addition to the present facilities is the least we should do for them?

Sir Knox Cunningham: When the country is being asked to save and expenditure is being discouraged, is it wise to make this capital expenditure?

Mr. Mellish: The actual total amount involved was £3,000. This Bar was furnished by my Department. I do not know whether the hon. Member has seen it, but I believe we have value for money and I think it is a service to the House.

Mr. Heffer: While accepting that this is value for money, will my right hon. Friend convey to the Catering Committee that for a long time many hon. Members have been trying to get teapots provided in the Strangers' Cafeteria not only for the use of strangers but for hon. Members?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a long way from Annie's Bar. We must get on.

Oral Answers to Questions — TECHNOLOGY

General Electric Company-Associated Electrical Industries (Merger)

Mr. Leadbitter: asked the Minister of Technology what discussions he has had in connection with the General Electric Company-Associated Electrical Industries merger on the effects of the reorganisation of the industry on the development areas; and what are the employment prospects for men and women in Hartlepool at the present Associated Electrical Industries factory.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Dr. Jeremy Bray): A number of discussions with the


General Electric Company about the effects of reorganisation following the merger have taken place. G.E.C. is well aware of the advantages, both to the company and to the nation, of maintaining and expanding their establishments in the development areas. As part of the rationalisation of its telecommunications activities I understand that it is intended to increase the work load at A.E.I. Hartlepool. This should ensure a continuing and substantial level of employment at this factory.

Mr. Leadbitter: Is my hon. Friend aware that his Answer will be particularly welcomed in the North-East but, arising from the information he has now given to the House, is he further aware that this is the first indication for many workers in Hartlepools that there will definitely be an increased work load, and there is considerable anxiety about present promises of reducing work loads? Will he therefore encourage the organisation of G.E.C. and A.E.I. to consult more with the unions so that confidence can be restored?

Dr. Bray: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's encouragement. We always encourage firms to consult with the unions in these matters.

Furness Shipyard (Closure)

Mr. Leadbitter: asked the Minister of Technology what discussions he has had on the proposed closure of the Furness shipyard; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Bray: My right hon. Friend had discussions with the yard's owners, the national and local leaders of the unions, the Shipbuilding Industry Board and other shipbuilding organisations. As a result, he decided to arrange for a rapid economic appraisal to be made to see whether any way could be found to put the yard on a long-term viable basis.

Mr. Leadbitter: Is my hon. Friend aware that I, as a Member in that area, am particularly grateful for his personal assistance in this matter, but nevertheless there is a shortage of time? Is he aware that in this yard, which is the most modern in Europe, the rundown in manpower is at such a rate that if the decision is not made to keep it open, time will run out for us?

Dr. Bray: The working party which has been set up to examine this question has been working urgently and we look forward to receiving its report soon.

Atomic Energy Authority and Science Research Council (Pension Schemes)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Technology what he is doing to synchronise the pension schemes of those in his establishments employed by the Atomic Energy Authority and the Science Research Council, respectively.

Dr. Bray: If my hon. Friend has in mind the terms of the proposed transfer of astrophysics staff at Culham from the Atomic Energy Authority to the Science Research Council in April, 1969, I can say that it is the intention that these staff should remain on A.E.A. conditions of service and be retained in the A.E.A. superannuation scheme. Legislation will be needed for this purpose, but I cannot say at this time what form it will take.

Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend agree that in view of the circumstances, there is a certain urgency about this matter?

Dr. Bray: The urgency is to ensure that proper pensions provisions are made. I assure my hon. Friend that there will be no lack of care taken to ensure that there is no injustice to individuals.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF LABOUR

Low-Paid Workers

Mr. Brooks: asked the Minister of Labour what estimate he has made of the number of those workers, who, apart from their extra earnings from working overtime in their regular jobs, would be classified by his Department as low-paid.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. E. Fernyhough): No estimate can be given. One reason for this is that, as the National Board for Prices and Incomes have pointed out, it is not possible to lay down a figure in cash terms to distinguish low-paid workers from their fellows. The other is that the necessary statistical information is not at present available.

Mr. Brooks: Does not my hon. Friend think it about time that it was available? Does he not agree that the implication of the Ministry's approach to municipal busmen is that the men, by having to work a 56-hour week, disqualify themselves from generous treatment by the Prices and Incomes Board?

Mr. Fernyhough: For the information to become available it would be necessary to add considerably to staff. Hon. Members who ask for detailed information of this kind ought to be aware of that. As to the busmen, since this is now a matter of negotiation, I think I had better make no further comment.

Mr. Brooks: asked the Minister of Labour if he will undertake an inquiry to establish what proportion of those workers who are classified by his Department as low-paid have supplementary sources of income from part-time jobs undertaken outside their normal working hours.

Mr. Fernyhough: No, Sir.

Mr. Brooks: Would not my hon. Friend agree that this is a very relevant point in relation to that made in the earlier Question? If the busmen made up their 56 hours by window cleaning they would qualify for generous treatment by the P.I.B.

Mr. Fernyhough: My hon. Friend may not be aware, but the family expenses survey will this year for the first time make it possible to provide estimates of the earnings of individuals in different income groups from subsidiary occupations.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Houses (Prices)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. BIFFEN: To ask the Minister of Housing and Local Government, by what percentage the price of houses is estimated to have increased between the second half of 1966 and the corresponding period for 1967; and what is the expected rise during the current year.

Mr. Biffen: No. 63 to the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

Mr. Whitelaw: Where is he?

Sir Knox-Cunningham: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory situation—

Mr. Speaker: Order. A point of order—Mr. Biffen.

Mr. Biffen: On a point of order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? What now happens to my Question No. 63? Is the whole business of the House to be held in suspense until such time as a Minister arrives?

Sir G. Nabarro: Or until the Leader of the House answers it.

Mr. Ioan L. Evans (Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household): The Minister is not present as we did not anticipate that this Question would be reached. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] We are sending for him.

Mr. Maudling: Further to that point of order. Is it not a fact that Ministers should not anticipate; they should be here?

Mr. Edwin M. Taylor: As my Question No. 64 deals with mortgage interest, to be discussed tomorrow, which will affect millions of householders in this country, have I protection against a delay which will stop my Question being answered as otherwise it would be?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot move from Question No. 63 to Question No. 64 which is in exactly the same position.

Mr. English: Further to that point of order. In these circumstances, is it not the custom to proceed through the other Minister's Questions and to revert to this at a later stage? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Sir A. V. Harvey: As the country is now being administered by the Mark II Government, would the new Leader of the House like to make a statement about how this matter can be rectified?

Mr. Peart: I will certainly see that this never happens again. I have already sent for the Ministers concerned. If it is half-past three by the time they arrive, I will see them privately.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Would it not be possible for the Patronage Secretary


tional Commission cannot be much longer to read the Answer, in place of the Minister concerned?

Mr. Speaker: The point of order is an important one. For the information of the House, I have been reminded that, per Standing Order No. 8(3):
No questions shall be taken after half-past three of the clock, except questions which have not been answered in consequence of the absence of the Minister to whom they are addressed…
I shall, therefore, see that hon. Members are protected.

Mr. English: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you now like to get an apology from the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) who, when I suggested this, said that it was not the case?

UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. HOOLEY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he will make a statement on the progress of discussions at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development II.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer Question No. 72.
The Second United Nations Conference on Trade and Development began in New Delhi on 1st February and ended on 29th March. The Conference covered virtually all subjects in the field of trade, aid and development which affect the economic interests of the developing countries. It is too early to make a final judgment on the achievements of the Conference. But I believe that it did produce a number of positive results and in certain sectors laid the foundations for further advance.
First, the Conference unanimously agreed on the early establishment of a system of general preferences on exports of manufactures and semi-manufactures from developing countries. This involves a major change in commercial policies as between developed and developing countries. Although this will require further intensive work, the aim is to settle the

details of a mutually acceptable system in the course of 1969.
Secondly, the Conference made significant progress in respect of the aid target. The developed countries accepted a higher target than hitherto, namely, to try to transfer annually to developing countries resources of a minimum net amount of one per cent. of their gross national product at market prices. Previously donors had interpreted the target as 1 per cent. of net national income at factor cost. This new target offers the prospect of a substantial increase in the flow of resources to developing countries in the years to come.
Thirdly, the Conference agreed that work should be put in hand to resolve the problems which still remain in devising a scheme for supplementary finance, and that measures should be worked out and presented to the Trade and Development Board next year.
Fourthly, there was agreement on an international action programme on commodities.
The Conference also adopted resolutions on a wide range of other topics including the terms and conditions of aid, various shipping questions, economic cooperation and regional integration among developing countries, and special measures on behalf of the least developed among the developing countries.
The Conference did not, any more than did its predecessor, produce all the results for which the developing countries hoped. But it did produce certain positive achievements, whose importance in practice will now depend on the follow-up action to be taken. The British delegation played an active and indeed often a leading rôle in the Conference itself. Her Majesty's Government will be equally active in seeking to ensure that the detailed subsequent negotiations make a genuine contribution to the welfare of developing countries.

Mr. Hooley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that very exhaustive and interesting reply. In view of the immense importance of this Conference to the whole of world trade, and especially to under-developed countries, would my right hon. Friend be prepared to publish a general appraisal, including the information he has now given and the significant resolutions of the Conference,


so that we can study them more carefully at a later date?

Mr. Crosland: I will certainly consider that suggestion, although, if a document were published, it would have to be a very long one. There were 34 resolutions covering a very large number of subjects, and the House will have access to the normal United Nations documentation which will be available to us.

Mr. Higgins: First, will the President of the Board of Trade confirm that the increase in the financial resources transfer target from I per cent. of national income to 1 per cent. of gross national product is very substantial indeed? How many developed countries are now achieving this? What does it imply for the level of United Kingdom aid? Secondly, as our achieving the target will depend very much on private investment, which the right hon. Gentleman did not mention, what is he now doing to encourage it? Thirdly, has there been any change in the French position on generalised preferences?

Mr. Crosland: The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that the newly defined target will mean a very large increase in aid; indeed, there will be a difference of about 25 per cent. between the old target and the new one. I cannot say offhand how many countries are already achieving the higher target, but I would think virtually none is. The United Kingdom is exceeding the present target, but has not achieved the new and higher target. I have said more than once in answering Questions in the House that private investment did not figure in any significant way in the U.N.C.T.A.D. discussions, and there is no change in Her Majesty's Government's policy. The policy of the developed nations as a whole on preferences was laid down in the O.E.C.D. document produced at the end of last year and, although there were certainly modifications on the part of individual countries, that still generally represents, as it were, the negotiating position of the developed countries as a whole.

Sir R. Russell: What effect will this have, broadly speaking, on the Commonwealth preference system as it exists at the moment?

Mr. Crosland: This will prove to be an extremely complex question. The problem will be to dovetail the existing Commonwealth preference system into the new generalised system of preferences. In practice this will be one of the most complex, detailed and difficult parts of the negotiations which will be taking place.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: In view of the great importance of the decisions taken at the Conference, and in view of the lack of information facing the Press, the public and hon. Members, may I urge my right hon. Friend to agree to the proposal to publish a White Paper made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley)?

Mr. Crosland: I will certainly bear that suggestion in mind.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Can the President of the Board of Trade give an assurance that no encouragement was given to discrimination in the use of merchant shipping?

Mr. Crosland: There were very long and, again, very difficult negotiations on merchant shipping. I will not go into detail now, unless the hon. Gentleman asks me to, but there was no resolution in favour of flag discrimination, which is what the hon. Gentleman is concerned about; and, had there been one, we would have voted strongly against it.

Mr. Sheldon: As the real hopes for success here very much depend on the improvement of the situation concerning preferences for manufactured and semi-manufactured goods, and as Britain has a very good record in this matter, will my right hon. Friend say what attempts are being made to translate this into positive action when the details are being discussed? It is on these details that success will depend. The general agreement, standing alone, will be of no use. It is the details, which will come next year, which will determine any chances of success.

Mr. Crosland: My hon. Friend is quite right, although I think that we should not underestimate the importance of the agreement in principle which was reached at the U.N.C.T.A.D. Conference. This is something which has not happened before. But my hon. Friend is


right in saying that it will be the detailed negotiations that matter, and then I hope that we shall play as constructive a role in them as we can. The Special Committee on Preferences to discuss the details will hold its first meeting in November of this year.

Mr. Maudling: As our balance of payments is much affected by the extent to which aid is tied or untied, to what extent was this discussed or commented on at the Conference?

Mr. Crosland: There was much discussion of the question of untying aid. There is no hope of moving towards more untied aid, in view of the position of the United States Government, who are totally adamant and, therefore, prevent any move towards more general untying. All we were able to do in practice on the question of tying and untying was to discuss the disadvantages which now arise from tied aid, which are quite considerable in practice, and to try to alleviate these.

Mr. Gardner: As to Commonwealth preference, what would be the likely effects on United Kingdom trade if there were these generalised preferences in favour of developing countries?

Mr. Crosland: The object of the exercise is to give an advantage to all developing countries, both Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth countries. To the extent that we give them an advantage, this affects United Kindom trade. This is the whole object of the operation, after all.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Whether or not there are serious objections to the generalisation of preferences in the Commonwealth, will the President of the Board of Trade state what is the present position of India and Nigeria on this matter?

Mr. Crosland: The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that there are different opinions within the Commonwealth on general preferences, as there are on Commonwealth preferences, due to the fact that some countries gain more from the existing Commonwealth preferences than others do. When we come to the detailed discussions in November, we shall, as we did in New Delhi, keep in

the closest touch with all Commonwealth countries.

Mr. James Johnson: Is it not a fact that only the French have hit the target of 1 per cent. so far? It is a modest target. When does my right hon. Friend think that we are likely to achieve it, in view of the anxieties in the developing countries, particularly those in Africa?

Mr. Crosland: As my hon. Friend knows, there are special factors which lead to the total French aid being exceptionally large. As for when we shall reach the new target, it would be wrong to give a date, and we did not give a date in New Delhi. We must make sure that our own balance of payments position is brought under control before we can set a definite date to the achievement of the new target.

GROSVENOR SQUARE (DEMONSTRATION)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Sir D. WALKER-SMITH: To ask the Attorney-General whether he has received the report of the Director of Public Prosecutions regarding the possibility of proceedings under Section 2 of the Public Order Act, 1936 in relation to the display of physical force in Grosvenor Square on Sunday, 17th March and whether he will make a statement as to what proceedings have been initiated or are in contemplation under this Section or otherwise arising out of this occurrence.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): With permission, I should like to answer Question No. 75. By virtue of Section 2 of the Public Order Act, 1936, those who take part in the control, management or training of the members of an association of persons organised and trained for the use or display of physical force in promoting a political object are guilty of an offence. After study of the police report on the Grosvenor Square demonstration, I have decided, in consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions, that the evidence available does not justify proceedings under that Section.
However 246 persons have been charged with other offences arising out


of this demonstration. These include charges for assaults on the police, possessing offensive weapons, insulting and threatening behaviour, obstructing the police, obstructing the footway and highway, and miscellaneous charges. Seven persons have been imprisoned, 174 fined, eight conditionally discharged, two bound over to keep the peace, and 18 had their charges dismissed. Thirty-seven cases remain to be heard.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: While everyone will, naturally be pleased that the objective diligence of the Director of Public Prosecutions has not found it necessary to bring any proceedings under Section 2 of the 1936 Act, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that these powers are available in the future if, unhappily, any organisation were minded to organise and train for violent display with political objectives?

The Attorney-General: These powers are available to deal with any association equipped to use physical force to promote any political object. Unlawful violence or incitement to violence will not be tolerated, from whatever source or however motivated.

Mr. Orbach: Has any disciplinary action be taken against the minority of police from whom, it is evident—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is evident both from the pictures in the Press and from television that there was a very small number of policemen who kicked demonstrators and who had to be restrained by other policemen from attacking certain members of the demonstration. Has any disciplinary action been taken against those few policemen?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend will recall that as a result of incidents in this demonstration 171 police officers were injured and 42 civilians received hospital treatment. The violence which took place was deplorable. One or two incidents were mentioned to my hon. and learned Friend, then the Under-Secretary of State, in the debate last week, and those incidents are being investigated.

Sir P. Rawlinson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that the majority of people believe that the police behaved with the greatest of restraint,

in view of the circumstances which they met. Was there evidence of foreigners and foreign students taking part in this raid, and, if there were any such, what processes of deportation are contemplated?

The Attorney-General: There was a disturbing feature in the demonstration in the conduct of what appeared to be an organised group of German students. As my hon. and learned Friend said in the Adjournment debate on 4th April, there might be cases in future in which individuals would not be allowed entry into this country if it were thought likely that they would abuse the occasion to foment disorder and cause injury and damage.

Mr. Conlan: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether any of the persons involved were members of the Monday Club?

The Attorney-General: I have no information to that effect.

Mr. Hastings: Can the Attorney-General tell us what organisation, if any, sponsored the arrival and activities of the German contingent in question?

The Attorney-General: I should like notice of that. Again, it was not the Monday Club.

GIBRALTAR (DISTURBANCES)

Mr. Maudling: (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the recent disturbances in Gibraltar.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. William Whitlock): On 4th April, a group of Gibraltarians signing themselves as "The Doves" published an open letter in the Gibraltar Chronicle suggesting a
positive solution to the Gibraltar question
to be embodied
in a contemporary Anglo-Spanish Treaty in substitution for the outmoded Treaty of Utrecht".
There followed a number of detailed proposals, which included one for the symbolical flying of the Spanish flag in Gibraltar along with the Union Jack; and they stated specifically that their proposals would not involve a transfer of


sovereignty to Spain. The letter also said that its authors had been in direct touch with the Spanish Foreign Ministry. "The Doves" are a small group of professional and business men.
At about 11 o'clock on Saturday, 5th April, a small crowd came to the Governor's residence and asked to see him. He saw three spokesmen who told him that "The Doves" did not represent the people of Gibraltar, had no right to negotiate with Spain, and should be cautioned about their activities. The Governor said that he would take note of their representations but stressed that Gibraltar was a democracy and that freedom of thought and expression must be upheld.
However, irresponsible elements in the crowd continued to incite public feeling against "The Doves" and their property. Before long, the crowd had grown and were doing considerable damage, including the overturning of a motor car and a bus. Two policemen were injured. At this point, a small quantity of tear gas was used. The crowd then went to the main square where the Chief Minister, assisted by other elected Members of the Legislative Council, attempted to speak to them. He talked to some of their representatives and pointed out the folly and danger of the crowd's action. With their help and that of his colleagues he persuaded the crowd to disperse.
Unfortunately, sections of the crowd led by a small group of hooligans began to ransack premises belonging to members of "The Doves" and to overturn cars. They also burnt a boat belonging to one of "The Doves", and innocent bystanders were assaulted. At this point, the Governor decided, after informing the Chief Minister, to call out sufficient troops to assist in the protection of lives and property. The troops have not carried fire arms but only pick handles and have been used mainly to guard points likely to attract demonstrators.
On Saturday evening, the Governor spoke to the Gibraltarians on radio and television about these events. He reported yesterday, 7th April, that all was then quiet in Gibraltar. Sixteen arrests were made on Saturday evening, and those accused were to appear before the magistrates' court this morning.
The Governor is setting up a Commission of Inquiry under the appropriate local ordinance.
I am sure the House will join with me in deploring these disturbances, which are so uncharacteristic of Gibraltar.

Mr. Maudling: The House will regret these disturbances and wish to congratulate the authorities on handling them in the way they did.
Does the Minister realise that tension is bound to grow in Gibraltar so long as the constitutional talks are delayed? It has been a very long time, many months, since the referendum. When do the Government intend to take some action in this matter?

Mr. Whitlock: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that tension is bound to mount in Gibraltar in these circumstances. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs reported on the situation of our negotiations with Spain on this matter on 1st April, when he said that because of the attitude adopted by Spain in the negotiations it was impossible to create the better atmosphere in which progress might have been made towards a settlement.

Mr. Maudling: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood my question. I was not referring to talks with Spain but to consitutional talks with the Gibraltarians. Could the hon. Gentleman say when the Government intend to do something about that?

Mr. Whitlock: That is a matter of discussion with the Gibraltarian authorities. But it is obvious that this situation has arisen from the resentment caused by the publication of the letter by "The Doves."

Mr. George Jeger: Does my hon. Friend realise that the statement issued by "The Doves" was made on 1st April and was by a limited number, a mere handful, of people in Gibraltar? Do the Government realise that the tension that exists there and the anxiety among the Gibraltarians is contributed to by the delay in having the constitutional talks, and that so long as the delay continues so will the tension get worse, and a few hooligans can spark off an explosion such as the regrettable one that happened last week?

Mr. Whitlock: So far as I am aware, the article which has caused this trouble was published in the Gibraltar Chronicle on 4th April.

Mr. Jeger: It was 1st April, I have it here.

Mr. Whitlock: I agree that tension exists and it has been exploited by a few hooligans. The Governor has reported that the number of looters and rioters was very small, and that they were definitely drawn from a criminal element in Gibraltar.

Mr. Wall: I deplore the hooliganism, but it is now seven months since the referendum and there is a deep feeling of frustration among the people of Gibraltar that Her Majesty's Government have done nothing to guarantee their constitutional future.

Mr. Whitlock: The talks with Spain have only just come to an end, as my right hon. Friend recently reported, and therefore the future situation will be dealt with as quickly as possible with the Gibraltarians.

Mr. Paget: If talks by "The Doves" with the Spanish authorities cause this sort of alarm in Gibraltar, how much more alarm would be caused by talks by Her Majesty's Government? Is it not reasonably clear that talks with Spain on this subject are neither practical nor desirable, and that we should get on with our own talks with our own people?

Mr. Whitlock: The reasons for our talks with Spain on this matter are perfectly well understood in Gibraltar, as they should be in the House. Now that these talks have definitely come to an end, as my right hon. Friend said on 1st April, because of the attitude of Spain, we can consider the future.

HOUSING

Houses (Prices)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government by what percentage the price of houses is estimated to have increased between the second half of 1966 and the corresponding period for 1967; and what is the expected rise during the current year.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Housing and Local Government to answer Question 63.

Viscount Lambton: On a point of order. Is it in order to take an Oral Question after a Private Notice Question, which in the order of business in the House can come only after Oral Questions?

Mr. Speaker: If the noble Lord had been here earlier he would have heard me quote the rule. [Interruption.] I apologise if he was here, but I have already quoted the rule which says that Questions which are not asked because of the absence of the Minister may be taken after half-past three.

Viscount Lambton: Can they be taken after Private Notice Questions, which surely naturally conclude the Oral Question period?

Mr. Speaker: They can be taken after half-past three. To fulfil the circumstances which the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, the Minister would have had to be present just after half-past three, before the Private Notice Question was taken.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Will the Questions to be answered now include Question 64, which would inevitably have been reached if the Minister had been present?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must be patient and trust the Chair.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): I hope that the House will accept my most humble and sincere apology for the inconvenience that has been caused.
The average selling price of all new dwellings, for which Building Societies granted mortgages in the second half of 1967, was approximately 6 per cent. above that in the second half of 1966. No confident forecast can be made about the extent to which prices will change in the current year, but I hope that rising productivity will mitigate the effect of higher costs. It is important that prices should be kept down as far as possible.

Mr. Biffen: Is not the right hon. Gentleman's inability to make any kind of forecast, as requested in the second


part of the Question, rather disturbing? Would not he agree that many building societies have already indicated their expectation that prices will rise by well over 6 per cent., and are not these circumstances which make it totally impossible for the Government to persist with the statutory fixing of incomes?

Mr. Greenwood: Forecasts of that kind are not always substantiated in practice. I think it much better at this stage not to cause unnecessary alarm and perhaps defeatism in the building industry by indulging in an attempt to forecast something which nobody at the moment can forecast.

Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Edward M. Taylor.

Mortgage Interest Rates

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (I) if he will seek a meeting with the Building Societies Association to discuss the possibility of stabilising mortgage interest rates;
(2) what effect he estimates that the present shortage of funds of the building societies for financing new mortgages will have on the housing programme.

Mr. Greenwood: I apologise again.
I maintain continuing contact with the Building Societies Association about the availability of finance for house purchase. The Societies' forward commitments to new mortgages continue at a high level. The main issue under consideration at present is not an immediate shortage of funds for lending but the steps which may be necessary If secure the requisite finance over the months ahead.

Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that an increase in house mortgage interest rates appears to be inevitable tomorrow and that that would affect millions of people? As the troubles stem directly from the Government's financial policies, will the Minister take the initiative in holding an urgent meeting to see how this can be avoided?

Mr. Greenwood: I do not accept the hon. Member's assumption that a rise in rates is inevitable in the very near future. I maintain constant contact with the Building Societies Association, and

officials of the Ministry had discussions with it last week. The Association is having discussions this week, and I think it much wiser for us to wait until we know the results of those discussions before commenting on what is likely to happen.

Mr. William Hamilton: Since the Government's prices and incomes policy provides for basic increases in wages and incomes of not more than 3½ per cent. a year, will my right hon. Friend insist that the same applies to the rates the building societies charge mortgagees?

Mr. Greenwood: We shall certainly insist on the desirability of keeping down any increase of this kind. At the same time we must appreciate the need for building societies to be able to attract the money from the public.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the particularly severe effect of high mortgage rates and the prospective shortage of funds on home buyers in the London area, will the Minister give relief to them by raising his ban on lending for house purchase by the G.L.C?

Mr. Greenwood: The general level of local government lending in the immediate future will remain the same. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have very much welcomed the option mortgage scheme which came into operation on 1st April

Viscount Lambton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I to understand that it is in order for a Minister to answer Questions at any time after half-past three on a day on which he is absent from the Government Front Bench?

Mr. Speaker: It is most unusual. It has happened before, for otherwise there would be no Standing Order about it The Standing Order says:
No questions shall be taken after half-past three of the clock, except questions which have not been answered in consequence of the absence of the Minister to whom they are addressed…".
When the Minister came in I had to choose between interfering with the Private Notice Question and the Questions which were being asked by permission at the end of the Order Paper and intervening. I waited until those were over before I put the Standing


Order into operation. It is most unusual, I must admit.

Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) is in his seat, and may I invite you to call his Question?

Mr. Speaker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that point had not escaped my notice. But I understand that he was not in his position at the moment when the Questions were being answered.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I entirely accept that I was not here when earlier Questions were asked, but I understand that my Question was not taken with earlier Questions.

Mr. Speaker: The answer is a simple one. The hon. Gentleman was not here when we reached the Minister and would not, therefore, have been able to put his Question.

Viscount Lambton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, you have not answered my question. Is it possible for a Minister to answer a Question for which he was not present at any time after half-past three,

or is there any time after which he cannot answer the Question?

Mr. Speaker: I would hope that there is a limited time, but I do not think that it is in the Standing Orders. I am sure that the House would be unwilling for a Minister who had not answered a Question at the proper time to answer it six or seven hours later. The contingency seems not to have been envisaged, even by our all-embracing Standing Orders.

BILL PRESENTED

RACE RELATIONS

Bill to make fresh provision with respect to discrimination on racial grounds, and to make provision with respect to relations between people of different racial origins, presented by Mr. Callaghan; supported by Mr. Crossman, Mrs. Castle, Mr. Crosland, Mr. Ross, Mr. Greenwood, the Attorney-General, and Mr. Ennals; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 128.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

House to meet on Thursday at Eleven o'clock; no Questions to be taken after Twelve o'clock; and at Five o'clock Mr. Speaker to adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[Mr. Peart.]

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House, at its rising on Thursday, do adjourn till Tuesday, 23rd April.—[Mr. Peart.]

4.2 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: I rise to oppose the Motion. I do so for a number of reasons, but the one which primarily concerns me is the Government's prices and incomes policy, which is clearly going through yet a further interesting phase of development. The House should be fully informed of that development and not have to wait until Tuesday, 23rd April. Not only should the House not have to wait because of its own concern that it should come first in the interest and affection of the Executive, but it should be told of this further development before 23rd April so that the Government can also make available to those engaged in industry, either as employers or trade unionists, certain information so that they may conduct their affairs to some extent consistently with what the Government hope to be their policy.
I have a special reason for opposing the Motion in that I sought to indicate that I would raise on the Adjournment an unsatisfactory Answer which was given to me by the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs. I then realised, of course, that there would be no opportunity whatsoever to raise it on the Adjournment if the House were to rise on Thursday until 23rd April. For that reason alone, therefore, in the light of my professed desire to raise the question of the prices and incomes policy on the adjournment—a desire which I expressed last Thursday—I would only be consistent if I invited the Government not to proceed with the Motion and thus enable me to raise that matter.
There are two or three points of recent concern which require a statement from the Government of far greater detail and commitment than we are likely to get between now and Thursday and which I do not believe can wait until 23rd April. The first, of course, concerns the announcement of the Cabinet changes and the creation apparently of a new office—that of First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity. This is a major announcement,

the full implications of which should be made available to the House this week. We should not have to wait upon the pleasure of the Government until the end of the month before we know more about it.
This is particularly so because we are told, not in this House, but from what we read in the newspapers, that the prices and incomes legislation and the prices and incomes policy will presumably be increasingly under the authority of the new Ministry. But this is a Ministry concerned with wages. It is a Ministry concerned with incomes. It is not a Ministry concerned with prices.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the merits or demerits of the Cabinet changes but must link them with his desire to come back earlier after Easter.

Mr. Biffen: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. My desire is two-ended—that we should not rise on Thursday and that we should come back before 23rd April. In either way the House could be apprised of the significance of the switch. I believe that the timing is all-important. It is all-important that we should be assured as speedily as possible what is the meaning of the transfer of the responsibility for operating the legislation and of the overall responsibility for the policy from one Ministry to another. We have to be assured in particular about the administrative arrangements now made for prices and incomes policy and to whom we should be addressing our questions on that account.
We cannot go away and spend the Easter Recess thinking up various questions we would like to put to various Ministers when the House reassembles if we are not certain which Ministers will be responsible for answering them. Nothing is more frustrating for an hon. Member than to be told that Questions which he has carefully allocated to a Minister on a certain day have been transferred because responsibility has been transferred. We must know, and know soon, what are the new divisions of responsibility.
Secondly, a statement should be made to the House about the new Department of Employment and Productivity because


of the emphasis on the word "productivity". It needs a fairly speedy and much more detailed definition from the Government than we have so far had, because negotiations are proceeding in industry leading to income settlements which, presumably, will attract either the satisfaction or the displeasure of the Government. We must know much more about the creation of this new Ministry and the new emphasis on productivity.
Perhaps I can give a demonstration of the significance of timing. This issue concerns things happening day by day and one cannot suspend the operation of industry for a couple of weeks just because this House does not happen to be sitting. The case I have in mind is the recent settlement of the claim of Merseyside tugmen.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is drifting into the merits of the subject. He is extremely competent to deal with the prices and incomes policy but not in this debate. He must now keep to the question of whether we should adjourn on Thursday until 23rd April.

Mr. Biffen: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I would like your guidance at least on the point of whether, if a decision has been announced to the House by way of Parliamentary Question, and if there is no opportunity to get amplication of that decision before rising on Thursday. I would be in order in saying that we ought not to rise on Thursday until there has been amplification of the Answer. It is along these lines that I would like to proceed, because this particular dispute on Merseyside was of great significance. It was bound to be watched by many others hoping to determine incomes over the next two or three weeks, during which time the House is to be in Recess. Hon. Members will not be able to call upon Ministers to answer for policies to which they are committed.
The answer to my question on 28th March concerning the tugmen's dispute was: given by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, who said:
I have been notified of a pay settlement for Liverpool tugmen effective from 1st March. This was not a straight percentage increase in rates, since payment for overtime continues to be based on the previous rates

subject to special additions for Saturdays and Sundays.
I come now to the significant part of the Answer:
The increase in earnings is estimated to average 13½ per cent. The employers were informed that the Government noted the increases but did not propose to prevent payment".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1968; Vol. 761. c. 324–5.]
That is an interesting answer which needs amplification instantly in the light of all the other settlements which may be taking place over the next few weeks. What is the significance of 13½ per cent.? Is it a significance which is noted, but not endorsed?
These questions cannot be left until the end of the month. They deserve immediate answers, because the Government do not, alas, proceed in this policy by legislation alone. We know only too well that it is a policy which proceeds on the indicated wishes of the Government, and the House is entitled to know what are likely to be the indicated wishes of the Government over the next three weeks or so when the House is not sitting and able to ask Ministers questions.
I turn now to the dividend aspect of the policy. At the moment, there is no legislation requiring dividend limitation, but, clearly, influence is being brought to bear on companies in this respect. As dividends are declared day by day over the next two or three weeks, the Stock Exchange will not go into a state of suspended animation, but will continue without the sniping, or assistance, as one will, from this place, but two instances have come up recently and require authoritative statements from Ministers, statements which we cannot reasonably expect to be postponed until after 23rd April.
The first was the grotesque announcement that Grattan Warehouses had cut its proposed dividend from 32 per cent. to 31·99 per cent. It would be extremely interesting to know, as there was no legal requirement on Grattan Warehouses to do this, whether this is the kind of way in which the Government want their policy to be voluntarily observed. It would be a nice calculation which we should like to have with some certainty before Thursday as to the amount of time and work and trouble—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is again drifting into discussing the merits. He must argue that he wants time before 23rd April to discuss the ·01 per cent.

Mr. Biffen: It would take time immemorial to calculate the transfer from 32 per cent. to 31·99 per cent., and I shall not pursue that, for I reckon that the merits are self-evident.
The second example concerns fringe benefits supposedly paid with dividends, as undertaken by Berni Inns. The House should have time to debate this case. What happened was that Berni Inns, when paying its dividend, gave a luncheon voucher, or meal voucher, or meal ticket, worth 15s. with each individual payment and said that it had been told that it had Treasury permission to do this, because it did not infringe the Government's prices and incomes policy.
This opens up fascinating avenues of the ways in which fringe benefits might be paid, and we must have tune to discuss it fully and to reflect upon the absurdities to which this policy is leading us. By asking that we do not rise on Thursday, we give the Government one last chance to draw back from the futilities of a statutory prices and incomes policy.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: My reasons for being reluctant to agree to the Motion will not take long to explain. I regret that the Home Secretary is not here to listen to my representations, because he is in the best position to deal with them.
On 4th January, the residence of one of my constituents, Mrs. Callis, was searched by the police. Some time after that, a well-known figure featured in the Press when her premises were searched by the police with a search warrant. An apology was forthcoming to that well-known society figure within 48 hours. As a consequence, my constituent approached me to find why it was that although that lady had had an apology within 48 hours, no apology had been made to her.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the merits of the case which he wishes to discuss if the House returns earlier than 23rd April.

Mr. Lipton: I am raising this matter because, although I wrote to the Home Office on 11th March about the police search of these premises, I have not yet had a reply, except to be informed in an Adjournment debate on 19th March that it is expected that inquiries will be completed very shortly. I hope that "shortly" means that I shall have a reply to my representations before the House rises on Thursday. I have been very patient and I have not made any undue demands on the Home Secretary. Without going into the merits of this case, to which I have already tried briefly to refer, I think that I am entitled to an answer before the House rises on Thursday.
A second reason why I suggest that we should not adjourn on Thursday depends to some extent upon the Ruling which I am about to ask you to give, Mr. Speaker. After we dispose of this Motion, we are to discuss the Eleventh Report of the Estimates Committee dealing with prisons, borstals and detention centres. This Report was ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 27th July, 1967. It has a full index of 15 pages, but that index contains no reference to Durham Prison. All the recent events in Durham Prison which have caused disquiet occurred after the Report was made.
I have had a number of communications from Durham Prison, two smuggled out and three sent to me through official channels. I should like to know whether we shall have a statement from the Home Secretary about Durham Prison during the course of the debate on the Estimates Committee's Report, or on some other occasion before the House rises. A difficult and serious position exists in Durham Prison. Although it would be out of order to quote from the lengthy communications which I have received, I suggest that if discussion today of recent events in Durham Prison is out of order, we should have a statement from the Home Secretary before the House rises on Thursday.

4.19 p.m.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I wish the Leader of the House every success in his new position. I am glad to see him sitting on the Government Front Bench, because I want to raise the question of foot-and-mouth disease and the importation of Argentine beef.


I hope that I shall not hear trotted out the old arguments which we have heard in recent weeks.
I find it difficult to agree to the Motion to go off on Thursday when the farmers in my part of the country, in Cheshire, are angry and disturbed about the whole situation concerning the import of Argentine beef. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) in his place, because I assure him that if he went up to Macclesfield he would gain a very warm reception for what he had to say about the import of beef.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is drifting into a debate which cannot take place today. We are debating whether we adjourn until 23rd April.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I quite understand, Mr. Speaker, and I follow your instructions, but I will have to expand a little to cover my argument.
The Minister is to allow Argentine beef to be imported into Britain. We have read in the Press various reports, in which the Argentinians said that they would send some beef, but the latest news is that they are not sending any. It seems to me that the former Minister of Agriculture, as I said at Question time one day last week, has got the worst of all worlds. He has aleniated British farmers, and he has pleased one or two of his hon. Friends who want cheap votes and cheap meat.
I want to know where we stand, because before the House goes into recess on Thursday there are thousands of farmers in the West Midlands and the North-West of England whose whole livelihood depends on these decisions. We have had seven or eight more outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in the last week or so, some of them being primary cases. Not only the farmers are affected. There are cartage men, hauliers and many others who are employed at cattle markets. Having suffered what they have suffered in recent months, I can only suggest to hon. Members that if they were to visit those areas and talk to farmers, they would understand the problem which I am trying to put to the Leader of the House.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter, because he will

not get anywhere; he is not getting the beef. Therefore, why not wait until he has got all the reports and then make up his mind about the importation of Argentine beef? He has a fine opportunity this afternoon as Leader of the House to clear up this matter. I hope that he will put the anxiety of my constitutents at rest concerning this problem.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: I had hoped that we would have a statement or a chance to debate the question of Service pay and allowances before we rose for the Easter Recess. The Minister will know that we have been waiting for a statement on this subject for some time. It is, I think, the first time in nine years that the Services have passed 1st April without knowing the future of their pay and allowances.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that this matter used to be decided by the Grigg Committee, and it was to have been reviewed regularly. You would rule me out of order if I gave you reasons why I consider it unfortunate that this matter is now sent to the Prices and Incomes Board instead, so I will not pursue that one. The fact remains, however, that the result of passing it to the Prices and Incomes Board is that we have passed 1st April, and the people in the Services do not know what their future pay and allowances will be.
This is a matter which the Leader of the House should have considered important enough to be decided at the earliest possible opportunity. It does not need me to remind him that even the Minister of Defence recognises that morale in the Services is low after his efforts to knock them about in recent years with his continuing defence review. That being so, and bearing in mind that our ability to man the Services properly in future depends upon recruitment today and the number of certain categories we can recruit even in the next fortnight, this is a vital matter for the Services. I hope, therefore, that we shall have an opportunity to have a statement on which we can question the Minister, or even a debate. Failing that, I wish to oppose the Motion.
There are, of course, other matters about which the Minister of Defence needs to tell us before we can rise for


Easter. There is the question of the advanced combat aircraft. The TSR2 was cancelled three years ago. Since then, the Anglo-French variable-geometry aircraft has been cancelled, as well as the F111K which we were to have. We therefore find ourselves, three years after the cancellation of an aircraft which was to replace the Canberras, with nothing on the stocks. [An HON. MEMBER: "Except the Minister of Defence."] He should be in the stocks and not on them.
The Canberras are increasing in age and there is an urgent need for a replacement. I am sure that I am in order in saying this because, as you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, these projects take five or ten years to develop. Thus, every week counts. If we get up now for two weeks knowing that nothing further is done, we shall be neglecting our duty.
We have been told in recent defence debates that the Navy is to depend upon land-based aircraft of the Royal Air Force for its future reconnaissance and strike rôles, as well as for its defence. Since the carriers are to go out of existence in 1971, it is vital that a decision should be taken on this matter immediately, because, as I have said, it takes five or ten years to develop these aircraft.
Likewise, the Royal Air Force has no long-range strike or reconnaissance capability of this kind. That Service, too, will find that in the early 1970s, the Canberras will certainly no longer be able to carry on.

Mr. Speaker: I am not unsympathetic to all the subjects that hon. Members wish to raise in the week in which it is proposed that we should not be here. The hon. Member must, however, keep to the terms of the Motion.

Mr. Goodhew: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, and I will not pursue that further. I add that the question of equipment of the Forces affects recruitment also. Therefore, it is vital that we should hear about these things and be able to debate them at an early date.
There is also the question of export possibilities. The Government are constantly telling everybody else that they should be exporting the country's goods and products, yet they are preventing the

aircraft industry from producing an advanced combat aircraft which could well be exported. They should make up their mind instead of constantly changing it.
In that way, the Government are preventing a valuable product from being got under way which could be exported in large numbers to foreign air forces. The aircraft industry is being delayed by the Government when a little encouragement and a decision or two, instead of constant changing of mind, would enable the industry to produce prototypes and start selling the aircraft.
On the same point, I should like to be able to raise the question of the Harrier, the Nimrod and the Jaguar. I would like to know why the Government have not yet placed production orders for these aircraft. We are told constantly that they are on their way, and we know that they are being built. The fact again remains, however, that foreign customers who would like to buy these aircraft cannot obtain quotations for them until a production order is placed at a fixed price by the Government. Bearing in mind the unceasing need for exports, this is another matter which I should like to have debated. If we are not to have an opportunity to debate before Thursday, I shall certainly vote against the Motion.

4.28 p.m.

Dr. David Kerr: The House is, curiously, thinly attended for what should be something of a rumbustious debate, ranging widely. I ponder on the curious paradox, when the world is so full of a number of crises, that more of my hon. Friends and more hon. Members opposite—[HON. MEMBERS "Oh."]—even more hon. Members opposite, are not seeking this opportunity to raise a number of different crises in the world at large.
As to prices and incomes, there are, perhaps, arguments for opposing the Motion as not giving us long enough to reflect about the matter. It might help some of my worthy colleagues and hon. Friends below the Gangway if we had a little longer to put our minds in order on this matter and to come back to the House determined that a prices and incomes policy is necessary and is capable of operating only with a big strong dose of Socialism. We cannot hope to operate


a prices and incomes policy success-fully—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is beginning to argue in detail a matter which he will be able to debate if he defeats the Motion which is before the House and brings us back early.

Dr. Kerr: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will leave the point and merely dwell upon the necessity, somewhat heterodoxly, of the need for a longer Recess than we are promised. It is not only that we need a little time to reflect on prices and incomes. There might even be some hope that during a more extended Parliamentary Recess the ferment in the world outside will subside a little.
I have in mind that the Government might wish for a little longer time, in the light of the obscene and tragic news from America, to reconsider our policy towards that nation. It may be that, in the light of the appearance yesterday in the Sunday Times of an account of the roverty-striken areas in the Appalachian Mountains of the United States, the Minister for Overseas Development might wish for a little more time to consider sending a team to that area to assist them in more community development.
If we are to accept that the House needs to come back a little earlier, there are also very cogent arguments for that, and I would refer to three areas which ought to demand our immediate attention within the next few weeks.
If I may come back, a little more seriously, to the situation in the United States, it seems to me that this is a little remote from us, and there is an unhappy tendency to regard the events in American cities today as being outside our interest, beyond our control. Yet the fact remains that they are influencing this country already. Today's evening papers carry news of the effect on our stock market of the riots in United States towns. I am not suggesting that we are in any way to be involved in the internal situation of the United States, but it may very well be that, in the course of the next week or so, the Government might face the further necessity to make announcements of the gravest importance to the House which would require debate. It is by no means beyond the bounds of possibility that a further deterioration in

the domestic scene of the United States could lead to a further weakening of the dollar, with all the implications for this country and for international finance which we have witnessed all too recently and all too unhappily.
Secondly, I would refer to the rapidly changing scene of the Vietnam war. It may very well be that the Government would wish to have the House in session much sooner than 23rd April, and I would venture to predict that many back benchers would wish to be in session much sooner than 23rd April, in order to discuss the Government's responsibility both in relation to the announcement by the President of the United States that he will open talks with North Vietnam, and to discuss the Government's responsibility to U Thant's proposals that discussions would depend upon the unconditional cessation of the fighting in North Vietnam. These are matters which we would all hope to have an opportunity to discuss and to assist the Government on.
Lastly, from my own point of view, I would once again draw the attention of the House to the situation in Africa. It is true that we debated this only a few days ago, yet already in those few days there have been two very striking developments. One has been the announcement by Ian Smith of the call-up of a small number of his home defence units. The implications of this in terms of the breakdown of law and order must clearly be a matter to which the members of my Government would, I hope, give the most urgent attention. At the same time, it speaks very loudly of a deterioration of the situation in Rhodesia between Rhodesia and her neighbours.
This brings me to the second point which I consider might require the urgent attention of the House long before 23rd April, and that is the news that Zambia is now proposing to embark upon a programme of arming herself, a programme which I can only regard as an inevitability in the light of the pressures to which she is subjected, but which would certainly involve this country, both in terms of Zambia's defence policy and the kind of economic aid and defence advice we might offer to that country.
In all these circumstances, there are very cogent and very powerful arguments indeed for bringing the House back into


session well before 23rd April. The rate at which changes in the international scene have occurred in the last week ought to be proof enough to any Member of this House that a fortnight's absence from the scene will bring us back to a vastly altered situation. I ask the Government to think again and to shorten the Easter Recess.

4.35 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: I believe the House should not adjourn for the Easter Recess until the Government have dealt with two aspects of Service pay and allowances, one of which has been mentioned briefly by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew). First, there is the question of the overdue announcement of revised rate of pay and pensions for serving and retired Service personnel. There is clear evidence of great uncertainty in the Forces of the effect of this on morale, recruiting and re-engagement which was mentioned by my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that the House understands that the Grigg formula, as it is called, has been accepted by the Government and has been honoured ever since. There is a precedent. In previous years, in 1960, 1962, 1964 and 1966, where the adjustments in the Forces' pay were implemented by 1st April. This has conspicuously not happened this year. We have already passed 1st April, and the Forces remain in their state of uncertainty, not to say dismay.
The reference to the Prices and Incomes Board involves a completely new principle which the House has not debated adequately. The whole concept of the Grigg formula was that Forces' pay should be brought up to date retrospectively to match past adjustments of Civil Service pay and average industrial wages.
The Under-Secretary for the Army on 12th March at column 1297 seems to call in question the whole matter of the Grigg formula, and this leads to uncertainty in the Forces. I hope the Leader of the House will be able to answer these specific questions at the end of the debate. Firstly, when is the Prices and Incomes Board's report to be expected? Secondly, can he assure the House that priority

will be given to the urgent question of the Prices and Incomes Board? Thirdly, and very important—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): We cannot go into these questions. We can only give reasons why the House should not adjourn until 23rd April.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am putting exactly the point that the House should not adjourn because of these urgent matters affecting the Forces. I believe the question I am now asking the Leader of the House should be answered before we feel ourselves free to go on the Easter Recess. The most important one of all is that when these delayed pay increases are announced they will in all cases be fully retrospective to 1st April, the day on which they were due. Fourthly, that the increases will apply to retired officers and Service widows, as is the case under the Grigg formula.
The second subject, an urgent one, which should be settled before we leave for the Recess, is the question of overseas pay and allowances which are payable to the Forces as a result of devaluation. The House should not adjourn, Mr. Deputy Speaker, leaving the situation as it is. To take a typical case of an Army sergeant serving in B.A.O.R., his basic pay has to be—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member must not go into specific cases of individual complaints on this Motion.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not intend to go into individual facts and figures. I want to put before the House what is the situation in the mind of an Army sergeant serving in B.A.O.R. who reads that his elected representatives have trooped off on their holidays.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member must relate that to the question we are considering, which is whether we should come back before 23rd April.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: I am putting to the House that we should not leave for our Recess on the date suggested, nor remain absent until 23rd April, unless this business which was raised by the Minister of Defence for


Administration has been cleared up. He said that he had received complaints about this matter because it had not been adequately dealt with, and men serving overseas would not feel that they were adequately compensated because of devaluation. I believe that before the Minister goes on leave, and before the House permits itself to go on leave, the right hon. Gentleman should explain what steps he is taking to deal with this outstanding matter.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: There are three reasons why I think the House ought not to adjourn. First, I think that we should not go away for our Easter Recess until we have had an opportunity of discussing the Common Market. The House will recall that last May, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was commending the course of action which the Government have pursued about the Common Market, he said that our application should be pressed home with pace and momentum; yet at Business question time a week or two ago, when I asked my right hon. Friend the then Leader of the House whether we could have an opportunity to debate the Common Market, he said that he did not think there would be time for it before the Recess.
If there is not time for it before the Recess, we should not have the Recess. We should discuss this important matter because of the situation which has developed in the Common Market countries, and also because there is evidence that many hon. Members have changed their minds since the subject was last debated in May. There is a clear indication of this among those who recently visited the United States to discuss the free trade area. They returned and indicated quite clearly that they had changed their minds. I therefore think that the House should have an opportunity to debate this matter before we adjourn.
My second reason for opposing the Motion is that we should have an opportunity to discuss the situation in South-East Asia before we rise. My right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary has recently been in South-East Asia. In fact, I am not sure whether he is back, but I think he ought to be, and we

should have an opportunity to discuss what he has found out there in connection with the decisions which were announced in the Defence White Paper, and by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 19th January. The House will recall that during the debate on the Defence Review some views were put forward about what could happen, particularly in Singapore and Malaysia, as a result of our withdrawing troops earlier than expected. There was a report in the newspapers, either this morning or yesterday, that the Prime Minister of Singapore had produced some new plan for training his Air Force. The House ought to have an opportunity to discuss what assistance we can give to Singapore and Malaysia, and indeed to our other Commonwealth friends in South-East Asia.
My third reason for opposing the Motion is that the House ought to haw an opportunity to discuss this new post of Deputy Leader of the House, which seems an extraordinary appointment. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary is to combine this office with his existing one. This puts many of us on this side of the House in a dilemma, because, in his capacity as the Patronage Secretary, he is such a stern disciplinarian that many of us quake when we come face to face with him. It would appear that he now has another rôle, that of defender of the back benchers. I think that we ought to have an opportunity to discuss how one can identify which rôle my right hon. Friend is appearing in when one approaches him. Will one approach him as the Chief Whip, and will he wear a different hat, or carry some weapon in that rôle? And when he assumes the mantle, if he does, of Deputy Leader of the House, will he carry a feather and go into battle against his right hon. Friends on behalf of the back benchers? I think that to ensure that hon. Members on this side of the House can sleep o' nights over the Easter Recess we should not adjourn until my right hon. Friend has had an opportunity to explain his new rôle.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: I rise to oppose the Motion on rather more general terms than it has been opposed by some of my hon. Friends. I do so, first, because


of the unprecedented uncertainty in the country, and in the House, about the intentions of the Government on a wide range of subjects. I think that this is matched by the recent evidence of the unprecedented unpopularity of the Government in the country. Those two propositions linked together give us a strong argument for opposing the Motion, and for demanding that we should be allowed to stay here a little longer in an attempt to learn the Government's intentions.
For instance what do the Government intend overseas on the broad issue of foreign policy? Who in the House, certainly on this side, and who in the country, can give a sensible, comprehensive explanation of the Government's foreign policy? We know that almost every initiative which they have undertaken during the last two years has failed. Should we at this stage in the game, when, as the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) said, there is great danger in the world generally, adjourn for the Easter Recess? We have no idea what they intend in the Far East, the Middle East, or anywhere else.
A number of my hon. Friends, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew), have asked what defence policy the Government have. We just do not know. We have a long catalogue of catastrophe and muddle which we have been debating for the last year or so. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the Government's policy when he replies to the debate? I doubt it, and this is another reason why we should stay here until we find out.

Mr. Roebuck: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman. If he can tell the House that the shadow Defence Secretary is prepared to say what the Conservative Party's defence policy is, I shall be prepared to assist the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hastings: I think that that is about the feeblest defence of the Government that I have ever heard. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to launch into a speech on our view of foreign policy, and defence policy, which is dependent on foreign policy, I could do so, but I am sure that I shall not be within the rules of order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I would not be allowed to discuss

that topic. What we are demanding is that we should stay here until the Government make it clear what they intend to do. We have not the faintest idea of their intentions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), with his usual succinct accuracy and clarity, raised the whole question of the incomes policy which has been launched in various forms, including last week's incomprehensible White Paper. We ought to know much more about this before we rise for the Recess.
We have the right hon. Lady the ex-Minister of Transport suddenly promoted, now rising from a bed of nails to a springboard, and we should like to know what she intends to do. We have heard a lot about prices and incomes, but we are told that the right hon. Lady is the Secretary of State, not for prices and incomes, but for Employment and Productivity. What does this mean? Before we go away, we should have some idea of what this title means, for many of us are convinced it is just another Prime Ministerial gimmick.
The right hon. Lady is the Secretary of State for Employment. Does this mean that application must be made to her before people are employed in firms all over the country, or before somebody is made redundant?

Mr. Michael English: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hastings: The hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear". We shall wait for an explanation of what he and the Government mean by that.
The right hon. Lady is also Secretary of State for Productivity. If we were to fill this Chamber with economists, and ask them for a definition of productivity, no two answers would be the same, and certainly we should not get a simple definition. During the debate on the Queen's Speech the then Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us a totally untrue definition of productivity. It is time that we had a definition of what the Prime Minister means, and we ought to get it before we go away.
Now we have the Mark II, stretched Cabinet. What does this mean for us all?

An Hon. Member: A souped-up Cabinet.

Mr. Hastings: A souped-un Cabinet. What does this mean for us? We should be told about it before we go away. We want to know the intentions of this Cabinet. We want to know the intentions and views of individual Members of the Cabinet, if possible, as well. I want to quote from a recent article by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) which relevant to the reasons that I am putting forward for our staying here for the time being. In the article, published 10 days ago, he said:
An important Cabinet Minister and a member of the inner Downing Street clique disclosed most indiscreetly his personal thinking a few days ago to a friend of mine who is a reliable witness.
The Minister said, 'We are not going to be talked cut of office like little Attlee. We don't give a damn what the country says. We're just going to sit it out. If necessary, we'll pull the whole temple around us.'
That is what was said by the hon. Member for Pembroke, who has as much right to his opinion as any other hon. or right hon. Member. I should like to know whether the Cabinet Minister to whom he was referring is a Mark I or a Mark II, Cabinet Minister. Is he still there? Did he really say this? Shall we have a statement about it? Will there be a denial? If we are going to get a denial let us have it before we are required to rise or the Recess.
If there is no denial we have a right to stay here and find out. I see that the Leader of the House, so recently promoted to his exalted office, sees fit to smile. There is not much smiling going on in the country or on this side of the House. Let him be clear about the fact that although these debates are traditionally treated with a certain levity he point that I am making has a serious purpose. We want to know about this matter before we are called upon to rise for the Recess.
I want to raise one other point concerning Central Africa and Rhodesia, which has already been referred to. I do not know why the hon. Member opposite should have raised the subject at this stage in the game. Those of us on this side of the House, who have done our best in recent months and year to comprehend both sides of this complicated question and who have sought—where we have thought it right—to defend the Rhodesian cause, will be very much gratified at the

news, this weekend, that the Rhodesian Government have now lifted censorship of all kinds. This announcement will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is surely a mark of considerable confidence in the sort of things which the hon. Member opposite and his colleagues are normally supposed to support.
But at this moment we know that the Prime Minister is doing his best to reject and—if I may use the word—dodge the initiative and the most magnanimous offer of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) who only recently came back from Rhodesia and has offered to do everything that he can, regardless of Party consideration to assist in reaching a settlement and to get negotiations going again. What answer were we given to our Questions, and in the debate two weeks ago? None. The danger of violence mounts. In the view of my right hon. and hon Friends there is only one way to avert this danger, and that is to work, through negotiations, towards a settlement in Rhodesia.
Are we to go away now and leave a situation in which my hon. Friends and I are convinced that the Prime Minister is refusing to negotiate because he is frightened of his hon. Friend on the Left? That is the position, and that is another reason why we should remain until we receive some sensible answers to our questions about the main problems which face this miserable Government.
In my seven years of Parliamentary experience, if ever there was a moment when a Government had reason to want to get rid of Parliament that is it—and if ever there was a moment when Parliament should do its best to resist it is now.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The course of the debate has been somewhat spoiled by the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings). He spent his time interesting himself in the business of the Inner Cabinet and in wondering about the doings of that nice young lady, my right hon. Friend the ex-Minister of Transport. Finally, he gave a lecture to a legally constituted Parliament, speaking from his bench opposite as a supporter—a militant supporter—of


an illegal and unconstitutional Government in Rhodesia. It is an affront that the hon. Member, in a British Parliament, should want to talk about the need to stay here next week when his real allegiance is not towards democracy but towards totalitarianism.

Mr. Hastings: On a point of order. I am willing to accept anything from the other side, normally, but I ask for your protection now, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Like many others in the House, I spent a number of years doing my best to do away with totalitarianism. I do not see why I should accept that accusation from the hon. Member.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No point of order arises. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) was giving his reasons why we should not adjourn until 23rd April, and the hon. Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. Lead-bitter) was endeavouring to reply. We must confine the debate strictly to the question whether or not we should adjourn until 23rd April. It is not right to go further into the details of the Rhodesian problem.

Mr. Goodhew: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member opposite to accuse my hon. Friend of supporting totalitarianism?

Mr. Charles Pannell: Of course it is.

Mr. Roebuck: On a point of order. Is it in order for Members of the Opposition to support an illegal régime?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In answer to this series of points of order, I must say that I have heard accusations and complaints of this kind in previous debates.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: This was rather different from previous accusations that we have heard from across the Floor of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This was a positive accusation that my hon. Friend owed an allegiance to totalitarianism. I would have thought that most hon. Members heard those words quite clearly. Most of us would ask you whether you do not think that that remark should be withdrawn.

Mr. English: Surely to say that one owes an allegiance to an ideology can hardly be an accusation of high treason.

Mr. Leadbitter: I was going to point out, in effect, that this was an argument why we should not support the hon. Member in his opposition to the Motion.
It is a nauseating experience to sit in a British Parliament and hear an hon. Member make out a case for staying here over the Easter Recess when it is common knowledge that his criticism of a British elected Government is that it is not acceptable to him—he used those words—yet an illegal régime in Rhodesia is. I leave that point there. I have made it, and it is understood. In course of time the hon. Member will realise that the long-lasting influences of British Government—of whatever nature—will endure when the unhappy story of Rhodesia has long been forgotten.
I want to come to the reasons why we should be here during the Recess—[Interruption.] I have learned that interventions like that are characteristic of the party to which the hon. Gentleman belongs. The subject I wish to raise is of immediate importance. With the exception of that of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire, I have respected every case put forward so far. Many of them are of great interest, but nothing is of greater interest to 3,000 men than the subject which I wish to raise.
At the moment, in the most modern shipyard in the whole of Europe, 3,000 men have been told that they will lose their jobs. Although discussions, which the Minister described to me this afternoon, are going on, until last Saturday neither the men nor the management nor hon. Members had had any indication of any firm Government statement of intention about what can be done in the circumstances in which the yard is to be closed. In a few days, one of the ships which has been completed will be launched and already the design staff in this important yard—the Furness shipbuilding yard on Tees-side—are serving a month's notice.
It follows that, after the launching, there will be a firm time scale of redundancies. I do not want this Government—

Mr. Onslow: Hear, hear.

Mr. Leadbitter: That kind of comment also is very childish. As long as I have the floor, I will say what I have


to say on behalf of 3,000 men who expect me to do my duty. If hon. Members want to snigger at that, they will answer for it.
I do not want this Government to hold these discussions in a Recess during which the one of the last ships will be launched, when there is no clear intention of keeping the yard open. Therefore, I ask the Leader of the House to remember that there are positive reasons here why these matters should be discussed next week.
Also, the Government have a large financial stake in the yard. Some 40 per cent. of the costs of re-equipping and modernising it are provided through investment incentives. The yard is also probably the most modern in the western hemisphere and the amount of work there, capable of producing ships of 240,000 or 250,000 tons is remarkable. If nothing is done by the Government, this will be the first time in the annals of shipbuilding that such a modern yard, with such new equipment, ahead of every other ward in the country with productivity agreements and so, on, has been dosed. In terms of finance, labour relations and recent re-equipment, the yard should not be closed.
If we do not discuss the matter in a few days, it could be too late. There is nothing worse for a development area than the closure of a shipyard, because, alone among industrial activities, it is the heart of an area, with a remarkable psychological effect. I hope that the Government will understand that, if they are thinking of not keeping the yard open, they should declare it now, and that, if they intend to keep it open, we are entitled to a statement this week or during the Recess.
The final and most important consideration is that we cannot afford, in Hartlepools, Sunderland and Middlesbrough, an area with a high industrial potential, where unemployment is running at six, seven and eight per cent., a further 3,000 men unemployed, because the skills involved cannot wait for promised industrial development, but will migrate, leaving too many unskilled men. That is just the North-East's problem—too many unskilled men with a shortage of skilled people, who are the first to migrate from depressed areas.
I therefore ask my right hon. Friend not to underestimate the problem or the fact that there are 3,000 very angry men in this yard who cannot see the sense of its closure. It is no good saying that this is just private enterprise—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must relate his remarks to the simple question of whether we should adjourn until 23rd April.

Mr. Leadbitter: The case for a debate cannot be opposed simply on the grounds that this is confined to private enterprise. It involves tremendous national assets of equipment and manpower and these men would far rather have their Members debating it next week. Where is the sense of a British Government giving about £36½ million to British shipowners in the next few years to build ships abroad, so as to close our own yards? That is the final question which Northern Members would be expected by these men to ask should the Government agree to postpone the recess.
I said that this matter was immediately important. The Government have done a remarkable job in the North-East Region, but the improvement is not keeping pace with the decline in the basic and traditional industries. I ask the Leader of the House to complement what has been done by conducting an emergency operation to save a valuable industry.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I remind the Leader of the House of a very serious problem, particularly in the South-West, which needs an immediate answer—that of rising unemployment, especially in North Devon, where, in spite of the holiday trade, which is under way, the unemployment figure is rising rapidly. We ought to be discussing it in the House and we ought to have a statement from the Minister of Labour on how he will deal with it. Unemployed people, not only in the South-West but throughout the country, will look with disfavour upon the House going into Recess without dealing with the problem and without a statement from the Minister of Labour and the Government on how they will overcome it. That is my first—and valid—reason why we should not go into Recess at the moment.
My second reason is concerned with agriculture, in which I am particularly


interested. Before the Recess we ought to have a debate or at least a statement from the new Minister of Agriculture on how he will deal with some of the urgent problems which affect not only agriculture but also the consumer, as I shall seek to show. Before we rise for the Recess, the Minister of Agriculture ought to make a statement on what he intends to do about foot-and-mouth disease. That situation has altered radically in the last week or two and we cannot leave it without a statement before the Recess. There have been further outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, all adding to the risk to farmers of a further primary outbreak somewhere else, and we ought to know exactly what the Minister proposes to do about it.
The consumer, too, is affected. As we have said many times in past debates, if we have a further outbreak the consumer will suffer not only in the increased price of meat but also in the dislocation of communications which arises through a very serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. The House ought to know what the Minister of Agriculture feels about it and he ought to make a statement. I should like to see the new Minister of Agriculture at the Dispatch Box so that we may find out whether he can cope with this problem before the Recess. When such serious problems abound in agriculture, it seems an odd time for us to have a new Minister of Agriculture. We ought to know from him exactly how he will deal with these problems.
Agriculture is suffering from a variety of difficulties which ought to be debated—or, at least, we ought to have a statement from the new Minister. The flood of subsidised imports, particularly of cheese and dried milk, is causing grave problems to agriculture. I may be asked why these problems should be raised before the Recess. The answer is that they are having a serious effect on farmers' incomes. Already we see the effect of these imports as they dilute the milk pool price. What does the new Minister propose to do about that situation? Will he simply leave it and allow it to drift? We want to see him at the Dispatch Box so that we may question him.
It is all very well for the new Leader of the House to smile. He has left these

difficulties. It would be unfair for me to say that he has ratted, but he has certainly left the new Minister of Agriculture with very serious problems, including those created by foot-and-mouth disease and the import of cheese and dried milk.
The Report of the little Neddy on the bacon-curing industry raises important issues. I want to know what the new Minister of Agriculture feels about them and how he will deal with them. The problems are serious and not easy to resolve, and I want to know, before the Recess, how the Minister will tackle them.
I could draw attention to many other agricultural problems which ought to be considered, but I come back to foot-and-mouth disease. The previous Minister allowed imports of beef again in spite of all our warnings and in spite of fresh outbreaks. I hope that before the Recess we shall have a clear-cut statement from the new Minister of Agriculture reversing the decision of the previous Minister so that farmers and, more important, consumers, may be protected. I hope that the Leader of the House will take note of what I have said and pass my views to the new Minister of Agriculture, and I hope that we shall have a debate or, at least, a statement before the Recess. If not, we must oppose this Motion.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: We ought not to adjourn while Motion 191 remains on the Order Paper—
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to remove the name of Sir Thomas Hugh William Beadle from the list of Her Majesty's Honourable Privy Council.]
That Motion consists of an attack upon one of Her Majesty's judges and demands that his name be removed from the list of the Privy Council. The Government have a special duty towards Her Majesty's judges. The judges cannot protect themselves, and it is therefore the Government's duty to take steps to protect them—and immediate steps—when they are attacked in this manner. No Motion such as this should be tolerated in our Journals, and I know of no instance in our political history in which an attack on one of Her Majesty's judges has been allowed to rest on the Order Paper with


nothing done about it. I recall an occasion when we took grave exception to a Government in Africa taking action against a judge because that judge had reached a decision which they did not like. A suggestion that we ought to do that sort of thing ought not to rest on our Order Paper.
This is no new kind of case. Where there are rebel régimes and occupations by an enemy, judges who are loyal to the Queen find themselves in a difficult position. They can retire, they can refuse to go on, or they can continue to work, as did a number of judges during the American Revolution and as did the judges of the High Court of the Channel Islands during the German occupation. That choice, certainly in the case of Sir Hugh Beadle, is not one of which we can complain, because we asked him to carry on.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot argue the merits of the Motion 191. He can only draw attention to the reasons why we should discuss it before we adjourn. He cannot go into the details of the matter.

Mr. Paget: I respectfully agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but in order to indicate the nature of the Motion and why it is such a grave debasement of our Order Paper and such a derogation of the duty owed by the Government to the judiciary that it be allowed to stay there for a single week, I must point out the circumstances. Therefore, it is necessary simply to indicate what the position of Sir Hugh Beadle in this matter is. He is a man who served in the difficult position of a judge loyally to Her Majesty, carrying on under a rebel Government; and he did so because Her Majesty's Government asked him to. In doing so, he had certain duties. Those duties are fairly well settled in international law. First, he must apply international law to the authority of the Government as he sees it and finds it in practice.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot argue the merits of the matter as distinct from arguing the necessity for debating it be-lore we adjourn.

Mr. Paget: It is very difficult to draw a fine line here between saying that something should be debated and saying what

should be debated. I believe that, where there is a Motion on the Order Paper calling for the removal of one of Her Majesty's judges from the list of Her Majesty's Privy Councillors, it is necessary to indicate what the complaints against that judge are and to say that those are complaints with regard to which this judge is not only entitled to be defended but is entitled to be defended immediately by Her Majesty's Government, because this is the essence of the matter. There is authority after authority for the proposition that, where a judge is attacked in Parliament and upon our Journal, it is the Government's duty to take immediate action.
I therefore believe that it is necessary here to indicate certainly what my view is—that in a number of very erudite and, I believe, deeply impartial judgments this Chief Justice, one of the Queen's most distinguished judges, did no more than his duty and did no more than the law required of him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman feels very strongly about this, and I have no doubt that it is a matter which should be debated, but the rules of the House make it clear that these matters of a personal nature can be properly debated only on a specific Motion and it is not appropriate to debate the merits of the Motion concerning Sir Hugh Beadle on the Question now before the House as to whether we should adjourn. I must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to realise that he has drawn attention to the urgency of the matter and to the need, because this Motion is on the Order Paper, for not agreeing to the Adjournment Motion, but it would be quite out of order to pursue the merits of the matter now, because there would be no opportunity of reply.

Mr. Hastings: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I respectfully submit that the Motion on the Order Paper concerning Sir Hugh Beadle has caused many hon. Members, probably on both sides, a great deal of concern. Moreover, the majority of us are not learned in the law. To enable us to make a judgment as to whether we should adjourn before the matter is satisfactorily explained by the Government, it is of great benefit to hon. Members on both sides to hear something of the legal case propounded by


the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The difficulty is this. It is perfectly open to the House to negative the Motion tabled by the Government to the effect that the House should adjourn. If the Government's Motion is negatived, no doubt there would be an opportunity of discussing the Motion relating to Sir Hugh Beadle. However, it would be quite irregular, because of the Motion now on the Order Paper, to embark upon a debate on a matter which is no doubt very serious and very important but to which there would be no opportunity for a reply.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Further to the point of order. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) has said. As I am not a lawyer, I find it very difficult to come to a conclusion on this. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is certainly informing back benchers. I recall the Prime Minister's saying not long ago that Sir Hugh Beadle had the courage of a lion. This Motion on the Order Paper should be cleared up before we go on holiday.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is perfectly In order to put forward that argument that in view of the Motion about Sir Hugh Beadle the House should not adjourn. But obviously the House cannot in this debate form a judgment about the merits of the Motion relating to Sir Hugh Beadle. Therefore, it would be quite irregular to embark upon such a debate, however desirable it might be at some other time.

Mr. Paget: I do not intend to go into this at any length. I have not even brought into the Chamber the judgments of Sir Hugh Beadle, which I have read. It is something on which I could make a very long speech, but I have not the slightest intention or wish of doing anything of the sort. You said in your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to which I pay the utmost respect, that this matter could be discussed only on a Motion—that this judge can be defended only on a Motion. This is precisely my point. There is this Motion on the Order Paper. It is the duty of the Government to take immediate steps to deal with the Motion.

Mr. David Weitzman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many of us entirely disagree with the views now being advanced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). We cannot debate the question. If my hon. and learned Friend is proceeding to put arguments in favour of it, it would be only right that we put arguments against it. I therefore put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is quite out of order for this matter to be proceeded with in the way that my hon. and learned Friend is doing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already indicated my view that it was open to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) to draw attention to the Motion on the Order Paper as a reason why we should not adjourn. As the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has indicated, it would be quite improper if we were to embark upon a general debate upon the merit. I repeat that I think that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton has already adequately given the reasons why he thinks it is a reason for not adjourning. It would be wrong to pursue the matter further in any detail.

Mr. Paget: Further to that point of order. I must protest a little. It is impossible to rule in advance that what I was going to say is out of order when you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, first ruled that to raise the question that the House should not adjourn until the Motion has been discussed, and discussed as a matter of immediacy, is in order. In view of that Ruling, all that I propose to say—I do not propose to take this in any detail—is that Sir Hugh has given certain judgments, that those judgments, in the view of many lawyers, are not only erudite and able, but clearly right upon the law as it stands—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must adhere to the Ruling I have given. It would be wrong for the hon. and learned Gentleman to pursue this matter in the way that he is proposing to do so.

Mr. Paget: In that case, I will not go further. I will simply say that I hope very much indeed that the Government will take a very serious view of this


matter and of their duty to do it judicially. They are wrong to allow a judge to be abused in this matter. The fact that his judgment may be something they do not like and something that some of their wilder supporters do not like does not change their duty in the least. Their duty is to deal with this matter. Their duty is to the judge, whether or not they or their supporters like his judgment. We should not adjourn, and leave this matter as something that can be ignored. It disgraces and debases our proceedings.
Rhodesia is, quite clearly, a deteriorating situation. From every point of view things are getting worse. We have an opportunity, and it may be the very last opportunity, to negotiate. The matter has been so much a conflict of personality and a lack of trust, but we have a man whose integrity is completely respected, a rid not only on both sides of the House, and who is trusted not only here but in Rhodesia. We should get some assurance that these valuable services, which could a: long last bring this folly to an end, are not being neglected. This is something we should reasonably ask of the Government

5 32 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I am very glad to follow the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), and to support him on both his counts. The Motion standing on the Order Paper to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, and which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, said needed debate, is a very grave Motion. It is, indeed, an injustice if we are to go away without this learned and honourable judge, whom the Prime Minister praised so highly, and requested to remain at his post and continue with the administration of justice in Rhodesia, being given an opportunity of clearing his name.
A debate would be a necessary debate, and it would bring to light some anomalies, because if it is suggested by hon. Members opposite that Sir Hugh Beadle should be removed from the Privy Council—

Mr. Weitzman: Hear, hear.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: The hon. and learned Gentleman says "Hear, hear"—it would be brought before the House and made known to the public that the

list of members of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council included the name of the Honourable Dr. Kwame Nkrumah.
I support the hon. and learned Member for Northampton who, as time has shown, is so much better informed about Rhodesia than are his right hon. Friends and most of his hon. Friends. I ask the Leader of the House, whom I welcome to the Treasury Bench in this capacity, to assure us that we shall have from the appropriate Minister a clear statement that Her Majesty's Government will urgently follow up the offer made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) to place himself at the disposal of the Government in a search for an honourable settlement with Rhodesia.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the situation there is deteriorating. If it is deteriorating in Rhodesia, it is certainly deteriorating in the United Kingdom. The report of the Constitutional Commission cannot be much longer delayed. Indeed, if we go away on Thursday we may find before we come back on 23rd April that the report of the Constitutional Commission—which, I understand, is now before Ministers in Salisbury—has been made public. Once that is published—we do not know what it will contain—positions may be taken that will make it well nigh impossible for an honourable, peaceful and early solution to be reached.
Good things have happened in Rhodesia, and I am a little surprised that hon. Members opposite who raised the subject of Rhodesia did not see fit to mention them. Hon. Members opposite are always eager to mention the things that are bad in Rhodesia, and that reinforces the argument for the urgent need of a statement, if not a debate, on Rhodesia. Mr. Ian Smith has announced the raising of the censorship—

Dr. David Kerr: Has the hon. Member noticed that there is no official Press censorship in South Africa, either, but that does not stop the South African Government pursuing their policy just the same?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask hon. Members not to take notice of irrelevant interruptions.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I shall not be tempted to discuss South Africa. When I was interrupted I was mentioning new factors which emphasise the urgency of the Rhodesian situation. On the one hand, we have the danger of the report of the constitutional commission and, on the other hand, we have certain constructive features which suggest that there may now be another opportunity of negotiating for a settlement. The first factor is the lifting of the censorship. The second is the speech made by Mr. Ian Smith against racialism. The third is the speech made by a cabinet colleague of Mr. Ian Smith against republicanism. Those are three new factors that have emerged since the debate we had not so long ago. There is now what may be a last chance for the Government to seize the opportunity of negotiation.
I shall not rehearse any of the arguments on Rhodesia that we have had a number of times in the House. I shall not repeat anything that was said in our recent debate—but it was a most unsatisfactory debate. At the end of it, we were left with an impression almost of hopelessness. Nothing was offered by the Government in the way of a constructive approach to the problem. The Prime Minister's speech was sterile, negative, destructive, and emotive to the point of hysteria. We now ask the Leader of the House in this Mark II Government to try to do better, and to put before the House a clear statement that an effort will be made while there is yet time to reach a settlement with Rhodesia so that we may retain or regain something at least of our trade and influence.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: Like some of my hon. Friends who have opposed the Motion, my complaints about adjourning on Thursday go back to the reshuffle at the weekend. I take it that what we had then was what the Lord President rather humorously, as I thought, called "Wilson Mark II". If that is so, I must tell the House that it is the Lord President's position that I put forward as the reason for this House not rising on Thursday.
The announcement stated that the Lord President was to preside over a merged Ministry of Social Security and Health. We have today not had any statement

from the Government about the details of this proposal. It is a proposal of the very greatest importance—and, incidentally, it is one that we ourselves have been pressing for months, indeed for years. Only last Tuesday I had an opportunity to put it forward, and at that time the Government seemed wholly uninterested. Naturally, we are delighted to find that the Government have now adopted it, but the trouble is that when the Government steal our clothes they tend to put them on the wrong way round. We should therefore like to have a statement from the Government as to what is intended. That statement should be made before we rise.
It could be that decisions will be taken during the Recess about the shape of the new Ministry. They might be wholly against the ideas which we have put forward. Our suspicions in this respect were increased this afternoon by a remark by the right hon. Lady the Minister of Social Security. She said that the merger was not to be of the sort we had asked for. It was to be less in extent. We should like to hear more about this before a final decision is taken. Many of us believe that there is nothing in the whole field of Government administration more important than getting this matter right. Therefore we think it quite wrong that the House should rise before the matter is settled and we are satisfied. I ask the Leader of the House, when he addresses the House, to give a firm indication that there will be a statement on this merger before we rise for Easter.
One thing makes me extremely suspicious. The right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) remains Lord President of the Council. A new Ministry is not being set up; he apparently is to preside over a merger. What is to be the time-scale? Is this another kind of whitewashing or a gimmick operation similar to those to which we have become used, or is it a real proposal for a merger? These questions should be answered from the Government Front Bench before we rise. What will be the relationship between this new Ministry and local authorities? To this we should have an answer. Merely to merge two Ministries and to produce a mammoth Department would be to go against the proposal for devolution of power to local


authorities. We should like to know whether the concept of devolution is part of the idea of the merger.
Only a week or two ago the Prime Minister announced, in similarly vague and inconclusive terms, a merger between the Commonwealth Office and the Foreign Office. In that case also existing Ministers were to continue and the change was to be made some time in the future. Only with the greatest difficulty were try hon. and right hon. Friends able to extract a direct statement from the Prime Minister. Only after pressure was a statement made. This increases my suspicion. I think it a right and proper request to make to the Government that before we rise for Easter we shall be provided with a full statement with opportunities for questioning on this proposed merger.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Swain: I think it hypothetical of hon. Members in many cases to argue against this Motion. When I looked into the cloakroom today I counted 14 bags with airline tickets on them. They were for various countries—Rhodesia, South Africa, Greece, and mine is packed to go to East Germany. The Governments of the four countries I have mentioned are not recognised by this House. I repeat that it is hypothetical of hon. Members to argue against the Motion.
Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) is not now present. He referred to 3,000 men in the North-East. I want to raise a similarly important question which should come before the House before we rise for the Easter Recess. I wish that that Recess could be five weeks instead of one week because, apparently, all the business of the House is taken over by the Executive. We are just called to go through the Lobbies in support of the Executive. This happens no matter which party forms the Government. Perhaps the longer we are away the more business will be done by the Government.
I raise the question of the mining industry. My hon. Friend said that 3,000 jobs were in jeopardy in the shipbuilding industry, but in my county—not merely is my constituency—during the past two months we have lost 3,250 jobs in the mining industry and 22 per cent. of those

declared redundant are men over 55. I have consistently asked since November last year when the Regulations pertaining to Sections 4(3) and 5 of the 1967 Coal Industry Act would be laid before the House, debated and ratified. In the debate in November the then Minister of Power begged on his hands and knees of the miners' group and of this House in Committee to give him the Bill with the utmost urgency so that the benefits could be paid during the Christmas holidays.
We are now to adjourn for Easter and those Regulations, although they have been completed and I have had a sight of a copy of them, have not been ratified. It is of the utmost urgency that they should be ratified by this House at the earliest possible moment. The benefits given by the Act will be retrospective to 18th July last year. Men who were declared redundant on 21st July have not received a penny benefit under the Act. This is a grave matter of urgency. Although many consider that 2,000 or 3,000 men in the whole complex of industry do not amount to much, to one man who is denied benefit because of the lackadaisical attitude of the Minister it is most important. This is of urgency for the man concerned.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the new Leader of the House on his appointment. No doubt he has had a real feeding up in the Ministry of Agriculture. I am surprised at the carping criticisms of his activities which have been made by our opponents. He has had a very difficult job. In my constituency he has done magnificently. I must insist to him that the matter I have raised is one of urgency. I do not suggest that we should oppose this Motion. If anyone wants to oppose it I am prepared to go into the Lobby in support of it. This is one of the things on which I am always willing to support the Government, allowing for seasonal adjustments and my Division records.
I ask my right hon. Friend to bring to the notice of the new Minister of Power the urgency of the matter I have raised. I am speaking, not as chairman of the miners' group but as the Member for Derbyshire, North-East. There are at least 2,000 men in my constituency who should be beneficiaries under the Act. The Regulations are quite satisfactory


and there is nothing to stop them coming before the House earlier than Wednesday evening at half-past ten. I ask my right hon. Friend to draw my remarks to the attention of the new Minister and that if possible he will bring the Regulations forward for ratification so that the money can go to the men who have been suffering hardship since last July.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I assume that the Minister is unlikely to accept the objections which have been raised against the Motion. I regret this because the arguments for debating certain vital matters before we adjourn should be accepted, even by the new Leader of the House. If he does reject them, I must argue against the Motion on the ground that the proposed Recess is insufficiently long.
I advance this view not as an hon. Member of the Opposition but because of the insufficiency and incapacity of the Ministers who are at present in office to adjust themselves to the realities of their Departments and because they need at least another week in Recess to acquaint themselves with what is going on. The new Leader of the House needs far more than another week.
These new Ministers have not had time in which to recognise their limitations. They should be allowed time in which to commune with themselves so that these limitations become obvious even to them. For example, the new Minister of Transport must be limited when faced with the task of taking over a Bill which is enmeshed in Committee and gripped with the Closure Motion. He is even deprived of the assistance of a junior Minister who knows his way about the Bill. Indeed, the House should be invited to reconsider the Sittings Motion because even if the new Minister knows what is in the Bill, which I very much doubt, he cannot be aware of whether the timetable is appropriate.
The Minister of Defence could use another week in which to think about Service pay. Threatened with a Recess, the Services do not know what is to happen to their pay. This should be most worrying for the Minister, particularly in view of the low morale of the Services and the low recruitment

figures. While I do not condone the incident of last Friday, when apparently a flight lieutenant in the R.A.F. elected to take a dangerous course to demonstrate his private resentment against the Government's refusal to allow a ceremonial fly-past in commemoration of the R.A.F.'s fiftieth anniversary, it is obvious that the morale of the Service is much lower than the Government should have allowed it to become.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must show what this has to do with the Motion.

Mr. Onslow: The Motion requires us to adjourn until 23rd April. I am arguing that we should adjourn for at least another week so that certain Ministers have an opportunity to improve their performance and revise their ideas.
Many other examples could be cited; for example, the incomes policy, which was mentioned so effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen). More time is needed for this to be given some serious rethinking. The Government need time to rethink their policies over Rhodesia. The responsible Minister needs time in which to prepare a proper attitude for the conduct of these affairs.
Perhaps the most tired and broken man in the Government is the Prime Minister. He certainly needs more leisure time in view of the way in which he has utterly misconducted the nation's affairs. An extra week in the Scilly Isles would allow him to do a little quiet reflecting and perhaps he could reassess the whole position of his Administration. It might make him recognise that the reputation of Parliament, at his hands, has sunk so low that only a General Election can save it.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Brian Harrison: I am glad of this opportunity to give a few reasons why we should receive statements on various matters either before we adjourn or immediately we return. I am pleased to see the Patronage Secretary in his place, because in his combined rôle of Deputy Leader of the House and Patronage Secretary he may recognise his responsibilities to the House and accept the request of most hon. Members, including a number of those behind


him, to reject the Motion. Alternatively, he may agree to a free vote taking place, if the matter is forced to a vote.
We must insist on receiving a statement, either before we adjourn or immediately we return, from the new Minister of Agriculture. One can understand why the new Leader of the House left the Ministry of Agriculture. The Minister who has replaced him will no doubt hasten to undo some of the damage his predecessor did by allowing Argentine meat to be imported before a full report of foot-and-mouth disease was received. We should receive a statement from the mw Minister explaining that he appreciates the errors of his predecessor's ways an that he intends to stop this importation. Now that the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) is no longer in the Cabinet to support the former Minister of Agriculture, we can appreciate why the right hon. Gentleman had to retire from the Ministry of Agriculture. I say that because I understand that the only time that he got anything through the Cabinet was when he had the support of the right hon. Member for Belper.
A number of other matters need clarifying; for example, what is happening with the prices and incomes policy? Although the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs made a speech in the House the other day, he has now been deprived of half his Department. One might almost say that the poodle has had its bark taken from it. We need statements from other new Ministers. We should know precisely what is happening in their Departments and how the Mark II Government are likely to operate.
Rural transport is another matter which needs clarifying. Unless there is proper co-ordination between the railways and bus transport, parts of the country will be denuded of population. Statements on these subjects must be made before the Recess, or, alternatively, we should have a shorter Recess.

Mr. James Dempsey: The hon. Gentleman has just said that we should have a shorter Recess. As the Recess at present is only one week, will he tell us to what extent would shorten that week?

Mr. Harrison: I thought that a week was seven days, and it seems to me that

the Recess will be a little longer than that.
Before we went away would be a suitable time to have a statement on rural transport, which is very necessary if we are to remain healthy as a country.
For those reasons, and because of the complete disarray in which we find the organisation of Government, which must be clarified very rapidly, we are entitled to oppose the Motion.

6.0 p.m.

Captain Walter Elliot: I suppose that on both sides of the House there would be agreement with me when I say that no Government within living memory has needed a rest more than the present one. Nevertheless, it should resist the tendency to lay down the load and go away, and I oppose the Motion. There has been a good deal of criticism rising in recent months about this House in general and about particular features of it. Some of it is misdirected and should fall on the Government, and some of it is unfair, but there would certainly be much warranted criticism if we all go away now while 500,000 or 600,000 men and women of the Armed Services are waiting to hear when the decision is to be made on their pay and pensions, a decision which is now overdue.
The Grigg Commission considers the pay of the Armed Forces biennially. That is the normal procedure, and its considerations cover to what extent the Services' pay has fallen behind that in civilian life, and recommends accordingly. It does not necessarily recommend an increase. It merely makes a recommendation to maintain the Services' pay, the rate of advance of the Services' pay the same as rates in civilian life. The procedure means that over a period of two years the Services gradually fall behind in their rates of pay.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss the particular recommendations of the Grigg Commission. We can only discuss the date of the Easter adjournment.

Captain Elliot: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I apologise if I am straying out of order. I wanted to make these points to lead up to a criticism of the Government's referring the matter to the Prices and Incomes Board


and so delaying the decision and arousing anxiety in the Services, which should be allayed before we adjourn. As a result, if the recommendation is accepted the Services' rates of pay become level with those in civilian life, and so they are not the pace-setter in this matter. Therefore, it seems to me absolutely unnecessary that the Government should have referred the matter—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now dealing with the merits of a particular issue, and that cannot be discussed on the Motion for the Easter adjournment.

Captain Elliot: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I strayed out of order, but I have come to the end of that part of my speech.
The Government could only have done what they did in order to delay the recommendations being put into operation and it is too cynical and would be bad for the reputation of the House if, having done that, we now go away for our Recess, leaving the hundreds of thousands of men and women in the Services in suspense and doubt as to their future conditions of service. For that reason, I strongly oppose the adjournment of the House until a statement has been made on the subject.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The most interesting comment in the whole debate was the intervention of the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), whose opinions are always listened to with great respect in the House. He asked if a day would make any difference to the Recess, which he said was to last for a week.

Mr. Dempsey: When the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison) talked about reducing the length of the Recess, I said that it lasts for exactly one week, or seven Parliamentary days, and asked to what extent the hon. Gentleman would reduce it.

Mr. Taylor: I listened to the hon. Gentleman with great interest, and I remind him of the remark attributed to the Prime Minister, that a week is a long time in politics, as we all know. Although the

Recess is just seven Parliamentary days, seven days matter a great deal under the present Government because on the average day of Labour Government we have had £1½ million of extra taxation, 50 extra civil servants have been employed, and 800 people have left the country to look for an opportunity overseas which they cannot have in this country. Although I respect the hon. Gentleman's opinions, I think that in view of those figures of £1½ million extra taxation, 800 emigrants from these shores and 50 additional civil servants then an extra day or one less day on the Recess matters a great deal.
I can well appreciate the feelings of the new Leader of the House, for whom we all have great admiration, because he hears conflicting arguments. One of which we are all well aware is that it might be a good thing to have a slightly longer Recess to enable the new Minister of Transport to look closely at the dreadful Transport Bill. I have had the pleasure of sitting on the Committee considering that Bill. It is absolutely shocking that we have been prevented from discussing important and significant Clauses, which could have a major effect on the people of this country, because of the imposition of the guillotine. We have tried to make very great progress, and have done our best to get through the arguments as quickly as possible, but despite that we have not had time.
There has been a dramatic change. We have had the appointment of the new Minister of Transport, and we have had the Joint Parliamentary Secretary promoted to another post. In these circumstances, it will be absolutely intolerable if we do not give the new Minister time to think about the problem, time to look at this dreadful Bill, with 169 Clauses and over 260 pages. It is absolutely intolerable to expect him to take over and know exactly what is going on. The new Minister has had experience of this. He was responsible for piloting through the nationalisation of iron and steel. I was a member of the Committee that considered the Iron and Steel Act, and I told him then that it was a mistake to nationalise iron and steel. I said that it would cause a great deal of harm to the country. I think that he would now admit that I was right, because a highly profitable industry had been brought into a serious state in the interim. We must give the


Minister time to think about the implications of the Transport Bill, particularly as it affects Scotland. I and other Scottish Members will be absolutely furious if we do not have time to discuss those matters adequately.
That is one argument for extending the Recess. There are many arguments for shortening it, one of the most important of which is to enable Scottish Members to have an opportunity of a proper one day's debate on the dramatic rise in violent crime in Scotland. We had a short discussion on the subject at three o'clock in the morning some time ago. I know that the new Leader of the House takes a very real interest in these matters.
Crimes of violence have doubled in 10 years in Scotland, and the murder rite has doubled in six years. There is the outstanding question of a request from the magistrates and the police in Glasgow for additional powers of search. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is sincerely and carefully looking at the problem, which involves many difficulties, but I am sure that he would agree that it is a matter of urgency. In these circumstances, we want a full-scale debate on the Floor of the House to give Scottish hon. Members an opportunity to look at the problem in all its aspects. This difficult problem must be carefully examined and debated urgently. We are asking for a return on 22nd April so that we can hold such a debate. This is not just the Conservative Party's point of view. The important series of articles in the Scottish Daily Express in the last week have shown that this is a matter of universal concern.
The third reason for shortening the Recess concerns our financial affairs. It is difficult to understand from Ministers whether the country is in a serious economic plight or not. However, we are told that, even after six Budgets in three and a half years, the country is still in a serious position. We should have more time for the Government to explain their policies. I was surprised to read in HANSARD the reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), who asked if we are going into the money-lending business. It was revealed that the Government were to lend the U.A.R. money to enable it to pay off a loan from the I.M.F.
It is staggering that this country, which has recently borrowed so much money from the I.M.F., should lend some of it to the Egyptians to enable them to pay back money to the I.M.F., particularly when we bear in mind that our financial troubles partly stem from the activities of Nasser over the Suez Canal. The Government are giving him money to keep the Suez Canal closed.
No doubt President Kaunda of Zambia is looking for more help from the Government. Last year, we agreed to give Zambia £13·85 million for approved projects. Unfortunately we had no opportunity to debate this then because of a Recess. I hope that we shall have an opportunity this time. On 26th March, in HANSARD it was shown that not all the money had been spent because not all the approved projects have materialised. However, the Government are still to give the whole sum to Zambia, so £5 million not required is to be given to Zambia just the same.
Is this the action of a Government facing an economic crisis? I remind the House that President Kaunda is enabling facilities to be provided for armed terrorist attacks on Rhodesia. Is it also the action of a Government facing economic crisis to give a loan to President Nasser, who has closed the Suez Canal to us? The actions of the Government do not make it clear whether or not we are facing an economic crisis. It is high time they told us.
We must also have an extra day to discuss the prices and incomes legislation. Whether such legislation is right or wrong, we should be told what is to happen when the compulsory powers are removed. The moment they are removed—and we know this from three temporary doses already—there will be a flood of wage claims which will knock the economy scatty. I do not want to face the prospect of this happening without having one extra day in which to discuss this vital matter. It is important that the Government should tell us what their policy is to be after the compulsory powers disappear.
We need a Recess so that Members of the Government and of the House can have a reasonable rest but we need an extra day of Parliamentary time to enable the Government to tell us how they are


to run the affairs of the country once these compulsory powers are removed. A day is an important matter. A day under Socialism means 50 extra civil servants, £1·5 million of extra taxation and 800 people emigrating from our shores. When we face these stark facts, it is all the more important to have adequate Parliamentary discussion and I am hopeful and confident that the right hon. Gentleman will accede to this reasonable request.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: We cannot possibly adjourn for Easter while British citizens are still being held in prison by the Chinese [Laughter.] A constituent of mine, Mr. Watt, has been locked up for six months in China and not one British consular official has been able to see him. I resent the jeers on the benches opposite. The freedom of British subjects should mean more to this House than the jeers of the Socialists on the benches opposite.
Mr. George Watt is an engineer employed by Vickers Zimmer in Lanchow on a synthetic fibre plant. He has been held since September. Mr. Grey and Mr. Barrymaine and others—no one knows how many—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot go into the merits of the case, in which he commands the sympathy of the whole House.

Mr. McMaster: I shall not do so, Mr. Speaker. The Foreign Office has recently reported that, as a result of probing and questioning, not one but three British citizens are held in prison in China—Mr. Watt, Mr. Grey and Mr. Barrymaine. We do not know how many British citizens are being held in China and before we go into Recess we should know what the Government intend to do about these citizens. What representations are being made to the Chinese so that our consular officers can see them? They have not just been kept under house arrest. I was recently told, indirectly through the New China News Agency, that one has been accused and sentenced to three years' imprisonment—and still no consular official has been to see them—and he has been unable to communicate with his wife and family.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are debating whether the House should adjourn for Easter until 23rd April and the hon. Gentleman must keep himself to that. I have assured him that on the case itself he has the complete sympathy of the whole House, including Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McMaster: Then I will conclude this part of my speech by saying that, before we adjourn for Easter, I would like a statement made not only about these men but about our relations with China, a country with over 700 million people and with which we should have good political, economic and trade relations. This matter has been ignored completely by the Government.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate that now.

Mr. McMaster: I will not seek to debate it, Mr. Speaker, but will simply call for a statement before we adjourn about what the Government are doing to improve trade and political relations with China. The peace of the world may depend on good relations with China, whose population is growing each year at a rate equivalent to the population of the British Isles. This is a serious matter and we on this side are particularly concerned for those British citizens who are under arrest there.
Other important matters have been raised in the debate on this Motion, notably the Transport Bill. This Measure will have a considerable effect upon Northern Ireland, adding to the cost of our trade with Great Britain. This is another matter which should be dealt with urgently. Two new Ministers have been appointed, and there should be a new Motion in the Standing Committee on the Transport Bill to give these Ministers time—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot traverse in debate all the business in which the hon. Gentleman is interested. He must argue why we should not come back until 23rd April or should come back before that date.

Mr. McMaster: My argument is that, while the Government are chopping and changing, while new Ministers are being appointed as Bills are in progress which affect the prosperity of the nation, we should not adjourn. All these matters


should be fully debated. Many parts of the Transport Bill have not been properly considered. One example is the question of aircraft policy, which has a particular effect on my constituency. Some of my hon. Friends have spoken already of matters relating to the design of our military and civil aircraft. All these questions should be fully considered by the House before arrangements are made to go into Recess.
There is uncertainty in the shipbuilding industry. Orders are going abroad and unemployment is threatened. These are serious matters, and it is quite wrong for the House to go off for two weeks—not seven days; it is almost two calendar weeks—without being able to discuss them. Two weeks of Socialism can do a great deal of harm to this country.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Maudling: I add my voice to those who have congratulated the new Leader of the House on his appointment, and express the hope that he will start well by answering many of the points which have been raised in the debate. The debate has ranged over a wide area, which is only proof of the wide area of dissatisfaction with this Government throughout the country.
The arguments for amending or opposing the Motion have been of two kinds. Some hon. Members have argued that we should have a longer Recess and some that we should have a shorter Recess. It was argued by the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) that the Government needed more time to sort out their ideas. He even seemed to paraphrase a famous phrase, suggesting that they needed months, not weeks, to do it. Then, it was argued by my hon. Fr end the Member for Woking (Mr. Or, slow) that more time was needed to show how the Transport Bill could be handled with a change of Minister in the middle of the passage of a most complicated piece of legislation. That is a thoroughly valid point.
Incidentally, on the question of Ministerial changes, the House should be told more about the position of the new Deputy Leader of the House, who is both Patronage Secretary and Deputy Leader of the House. This is the only example I can recall of someone who has simultaneously to be both a hawk

and a dove. We want to know what the right hon. Gentleman's plumage will be like and what sounds, if any, he will emit in the House. We hope that, before the House rises for the Recess, we shall have some information about that.
I suspect that those who argued for a longer Recess argued with less vigour and, perhaps, less conviction than those who argued for a shorter Recess on the ground that there are many important matters which ought to be dealt with before the House adjourns. I shall not catalogue them all. They were raised on both sides. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) raised the important matter of the Motion on the Order Paper about Sir Hugh Beadle. The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) is concerned about the closing of a shipyard in his area. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) is concerned about miners in his constituency who are awaiting their redundancy payments. All these are genuine examples of urgent matters which hon. Members are entitled to have dealt with in some way or other before the House can feel entitled to take a substantial, though not a long, Recess.
From our side, many matters have been raised, and I shall take up three specifically, all examples of questions calling for urgent action. First, the question of foot-and-mouth disease, raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) and for Malden (Mr. Brian Harrison), all of whom stressed the urgency of the problem. In his new capacity, the Leader of the House can call on the resources of his own experience in dealing with it. There is genuine concern about the recrudescence of foot-and-mouth disease and the effect of the Government's decision about the importation of beef from Argentina. This matter should be cleared up before the House can reasonably rise for the Recess.
The second matter of urgency I take up is the question of Forces' pay, raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles), my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain Elliot). They


all stressed the exceptional situation this year, the first time for nine years at least, I think, when the Forces have not known so late in the year what the position regarding their pay will be. We warned the Government when they referred this matter to the Prices and Incomes Board that there would be this delay. There is clear evidence that it is an urgent matter, and it is one which ought to be dealt with by the Government before they allow the House to go into Recess.
The third urgent matter is the prices and incomes policy and the need for further clarification about it. It is urgent because decisions are being taken day by day throughout the country, and the form of these decisions is influenced by Government policy although that policy has not been adequately clarified. What is their exact policy regarding rents, regarding dividends or regarding rate fixing in industry? All these are matters on which daily decisions have to be taken by Her Majesty's subjects although they are still in ignorance of the Government's real purpose and intention. The Government seem determined to act retrospectively, to legislate to validate acts of influence, as they call it. They cannot properly ask the House to go into recess without vouchsafing more information about their policy.
I have confined myself to matters requiring urgent consideration which are, therefore, proper for this debate. A good many other points were raised, but I need not rehearse those. To recapitulate, the three main matters raised from this side on which urgent action is required are the danger of foot-and-mouth disease, the urgent need for an announcement on Forces' pay, and the urgent need for clarification of the Government's policy on prices and incomes. I ask the Leader of the House to make a good start in his new capacity by dealing with them, in so far as his colleagues' inadequacies allow.

6.27 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I thank right hon. and hon. Members on both sides for their kind remarks about me. I confess that I shall miss my Department. It is a very fine Ministry, even though it has been mentioned again today in a critical tone. It is not unusual

for a Minister making a change to miss his Ministry, and I shall miss mine. However, I shall do my best in the position which I now have the honour to hold.
I have been in the House now for 23 years, 19 years as a back-bencher. I can remember many occasions when I, as a back-bencher, pressed Ministers, as hon. Members have pressed them so effectively today, conveying to the House their interest and concern on specific matters and calling for a change in Government policy. I understand that. I believe that a Leader of the House should not only see that Government policy goes through smoothly but should also represent the rights and interests of individuals and of both sides of the House, in the best sense. I trust that I shall do that in my period of office. I believe it to be the right approach.
I listened carefully to the many points raised today. In his concise speech, the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) highlighted some of the main problems which are worrying hon. Members on both sides, although, naturally, the emphasis was on the views of the Opposition, as is only right. First, the question of foot-and-mouth disease. Here, I am not briefed. I must speak from my own experience. Only a few days ago, I answered questions on this subject, not only Questions in the House but questions in the Welsh Grand Committee as well, as Flintshire, a small Welsh county, has been considerably affected. I am aware of the anxieties of many hon. Members in this connection. The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) chided me, as he has done on many occasions in agriculture debates. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), because of the nature of his constituency, quite rightly expressed his concern. He has always taken a considerable interest not only in foot and mouth, but in brucellosis.
I have never denied the existence of anxieties. I was the guest of the National Farmers' Union at an annual dinner in Flintshire only a week ago when many farmers whose farms had been affected by the disease spoke to me. I think that there was an appreciation of what the Ministry of Agriculture had done to meet this terrific disaster for many farmers in the belt of the country that runs through Shropshire and Cheshire,


how the Ministry had coped with it and how, even though the slaughter policy had been attacked in many quarters, we had succeeded in containing the outbreak.
I know that there is now concern about recrudescence of the disease and reinfection. It is quite right that hon. Members should express their concern and I will convey it to my right hon. Friend who only today has taken over as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. If it is necessary for a specific statement to be made, it will be for him to make it. I have been frequently pressed to give information to the House, but I hope that hon. Members will not now panic.
I was asked about food imports. It cannot be said that the present supply of imports from the Argentine has affected recrudescence and reinfection. A decision was taken and the House debated and approved it. But that is no reason for opposing the Motion. We have spent a considerable time discussing this subject, although I appreciate that hon. Members may want to return to it. There is the Northumberland Report, and my right hon. Friend will get the report of the veterinary mission which is in the Argentine. I will convey to him the anxieties which hon. Members have expressed today.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I appreciate the reasonable way in which the right hon. Gentleman is referring to this problem, but in view of the statements being made by the Argentine Government, is it likely that we shall be able to import beef from the Argentine?

Mr. Peart: I answered a Question on this subject only last week, when I said that the trade was now making arrangements. As far as I know, there has been no definite promise of any meat coming from the Argentine. I understand that there are certain difficulties, but these are matters for the trade and for private enterprise. I do not suggest that the Sate should interfere with normal trading.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate each of these issues in full.

Mr. Peart: I recognise that, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman.
I accept what the right hon. Member for Barnet said about Forces' pay, a subject to which a number of hon. Members have referred, including the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles) and the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley). I understand the worry. Other hon. Members have tried to develop the defence aspects of the matter in greater detail. I shall convey to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence what has been said about Forces' pay, the production of aircraft and the needs of the Forces in different parts of the country and in the world. But none of these things is a cause for opposing the Motion.
I was asked specifically by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester when we would have the N.B.P.I. Report, but I can add nothing to the answer given last Thursday. The Board is well aware of the importance of the subject. I cannot discuss its merits, but I will note what has been said. I know that hon. Members are anxious to have a quick report and for the Secretary of State to make his attitudes known. I shall certainly convey those sentiments to him.
The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) began the debate by stressing the importance of the prices and incomes policy and the need for a clear statement about the new position of the new Ministries. Several other hon. Members pursued the subject. I will convey to my right hon. Friends what has been said. There ought to be more information about the responsibilities of my senior colleagues in their new Departments. The hon. Member for Chelsea asked me particularly about social security and the social services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) spoke about the state of the mining industry and asked me to convey to my right hon. Friend the importance of speeding up the issue of regulations which will very much affect the mining community generally. My hon. Friend the Member for The Hartle-pools (Mr. Leadbitter) spoke about the Furness Yard. As he knows, I have a constituency which is similar to his. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall convey to my colleagues responsible his anxieties about 3,000 shipbuilding workers who may be made redundant.
A number of other matters were mentioned. One subject was the Common Market and the need to clarify the position in view of a change in situation. I note what has been said, but I see no reason for altering the Recess. During the few days before we adjourn, hon. Members will have the opportunity to cross-examine Ministers and to consult them about matters of detail.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) spoke about the detention of British citizens in China. He must be aware that the matter was raised in debate on 28th March when we discussed the Consular Relations Bill. He will find a report of that debate in columns 1843 to 1864 of HANSARD for that date, and I hope that he will read it. We must continue to press the Chinese Government so that we can have good diplomatic relations and make certain that the rights of British citizens are safeguarded.

Mr. Roebuck: My right hon. Friend very briefly passed over one of my reasons for opposing the Motion. Can he make some statement about the duties of the Deputy Leader of the House in view of the matters which I raised? I do not know how to approach my right hon. Friend. Can the Leader of the House give us some assistance?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are discussing whether the House should adjourn until 23rd April.

Mr. Peart: Any need to make a statement on that matter is no reason for altering the date of the Recess. I shall be only too pleased after this debate to explain the new arrangements to my hon. Friend. I think that they will improve the efficiency of the House and considerably help me in my duties as Leader of the House.

Mr. Roebuck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I shall be unable to sleep at night until I know precisely in what way to regard my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary—as the friend of all back-benchers or as a stern disciplinarian.

Mr. Peart: I hope that my hon. Friend will sleep longer when he has the Recess so that he can come back refreshed. I hope that, after his talk with me after this debate, he will appreciate how much this procedure will help to improve efficiency.
For all those reasons, I hope that the House will now agree to the Motion.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down—

Mr. Peart: If the hon. Member will give way, I know what he is going to say. It is about Rhodesia and the judges.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: It is a different matter. The right hon. Gentleman has not addressed himself to the points which have been raised, from both sides, regarding the Report of the Constitutional Commission, which makes this a matter of grave urgency. The whole Rhodesian affairs may move to a decision during the proposed Recess—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot make a second speech as an intervention.

Mr. Peart: As I said before the hon. Member came back, I will take note of what has been said and I will convey to my colleagues who are responsible the views of all hon. Members. I give that assurance.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday, do adjourn till Tuesday, 23rd April.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

CIVIL EVIDENCE BILL [Lords]

Referred to a Second Reading Cornmittee.—[Mr. Peart.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[18TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

ESTIMATES

The following Motion stood upon the Order Paper:
That this House takes note of the Eleventh Report from the Estimates Committee in the last Session of Parliament and of the Fifth Special Report from the Estimates Committee elating to Prisons, Borstals and Detention Centres.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the first speaker in the debate, may I remind the House that the forthcoming debate has been truncated. Reasonably brief speeches will help in what is a very important debate.

6.42 p.m.

Mrs. Renée Short: In view of what you have aid, Mr. Speaker—that debate has been truncated—as Chairman of the Sub-Committee which prepared the Report I am not prepared on this occasion to move the Motion for the House to take note of it.
I do this because it is clearly not fair to the members of my Sub-Committee, who spent a great deal of time on the preparation of the Report, and on the witnesses who came before us, to attempt to despatch the Report in just over three hours. When the business of the House was announced last week by the then Leader of the House, no mention was made of the fact that we would today be taking the Motion for the Easter Adjournment—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must be careful or she will find herself peaking to the Motion.

Mrs. Short: I hope that I have made the point, Mr. Speaker.

Sir David Renton: On a point of order. As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, today was an Opposition Supply Day and it was decided by common consent, on both sides, that the important subject of prisons, borstals and detention centres should be put down for

debate. It cannot be debated—I understand that the reason is purely technical—unless a member of the Estimates Committee moves that it be debated. The hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short), who was Chairman of the Sub-Committee of the Estimates Committee, has declined to move it.
Is there no other way, Mr. Speaker, in which the rights of the Opposition can be protected so that they do not appear to lose their Supply Day? If there is no other way, perhaps the new Leader of the House—whose appointment I greatly welcome—can indicate when the Government will allow this matter to be debated in Government time, because it is of the greatest importance and of great interest on both sides of the House.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: Further to the point of order. May I, Mr. Speaker, as an hon. Member who is also a member of the Sub-Committee, say that the hon. Lady is perfectly right in not moving the Motion. This is the third time in three weeks that the business of the House has been changed from what was announced on the previous Thursday. First, we were to have a Vote on Account. Then, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) objected about the business being changed. Today, I came here at half-past three to debate the important Motion from the Estimates Committee and, once again, the business has been changed, without any notice of the change being given by the Leader of the House.
Last week, as the then Leader of the House on Thursday was inviting so many hon. Members to raise points in the debate on the Motion for the Easter Adjournment, I asked him when he proposed to move his Motion for the Recess. He replied that he did not know. I suggested to him that Tuesday or Wednesday would obviously be the proper day to do so. He gave no indication when he would move his Motion.
It is quite wrong, and against the Estimates Committee and the rights of back-benchers, that the business of the House should be interfered with for the third time in three weeks.

Mr. E. Rowlands: Further to the point of order. I wish, Mr. Speaker, to endorse what has just been said and also, as a member of the Sub-Committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short), to support the view which she has expressed concerning the way that the debate has been truncated. We spent 12 months preparing our Report, we waited six months for the debate and we now find that it has turned out to be no more than half a day. I therefore support what has been said from both sides in opposing any debate on the subject today.

Mr. Reginald Maudling: Further to the point of order. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether we may have assistance from the new Leader of the House on this matter. The House seems to have been put in a very difficult position. If hon. Members who expected to debate this important matter are, apparently, to be disappointed, what happens to our Supply Day as such I do not know. We need an explanation immediately from the Leader of the House. Can he think of a way to extricate the House from the unfortunate situation in which it has been placed by the Government putting down the Easter Adjournment Motion for today?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I understand that hon. Members are in difficulties in this matter. This arrangement had been made. Many hon. Members have spoken earlier today on the Motion for the Easter Adjournment, as is the traditional way for hon. Members rightly to raise their different points of view. It would have been for any hon. Member who was a member of the Estimates Committee to have moved the Motion. However, that has not been done and the next Order has been called.
I will look at the possibility of having Government time. I cannot promise a whole day, but I will do my best to get some time so that we can have the debate. We cannot, however, do it now. It is too late.

Mr. Charles Pannell: One can understand the indignation of

members of the Estimates Committee, but, on the other hand, we have had the earlier debate on the Easter Adjournment. I remember few occasions on which that debate has been so drearily and almost procrastinatingly, if that is the right word, dragged on. It must have been within the knowledge of the House that that important debate was coming up. All sorts of hon. Members have raised ad nauseam matters concerning Rhodesia and all sorts of things.
It is not an occasion even for the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) to complain about the rights of the Opposition. If the House—not merely the Opposition—cares to inflate all sorts of speeches in debate without any consideration for the Estimates Committee, the only result is that the House gets into this position. The House can carry on only by the good will and common sense generally of hon. Members. The Estimates Committee has called attention to an abuse.

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order. May I make clear for the record, Mr. Speaker, that as Chairman of the full Estimates Committee I have contacted as many members both of the Sub-Committee and of the full Committee as I could in the time at my disposal, and they unanimously agreed that we should take this course of action as a protest against the Government action in putting down the debate on the Easter Recess on the same day as the important debate on prisons, borstals and detention centres.
The Government must have known full well that the debate for the Easter Adjournment would take two or three hours, as it normally does, and that it would automatically cut into the time at the disposal of the Estimates Committee. This is a scandalous way of treating an important Sub-Committee of the Estimates Committee.

Mr. John Wells: Further to the point of order. If the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) will take the trouble to consult the list at the entrance to the Chamber he will see that his hon. Friends spoke for far longer than hon. Members on this


side of the House. Furthermore, he was not sitting all through the debate, as I was, hoping to be called.

Mr. Speaker: How long hon. Members on each side have spoken for is not a point of order.

Mr. Leo Abse: Further to the points of order that have been raised. Natural disappointment has been occasioned by the collapse of this debate and very few hon. Members will have been mollified by what the Leader of the House has said. When hon. Members have been told that this question has to be discussed in conjunction with another report that has since come out, it seems, to say the least, churlish that the Leader of the House could so parsimoniously suggest that the House can be satisfied by having at a future date something less than a day. I think that my right hon. Friend could give more careful consideration to this demand than has been given to it.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: Further to the point of order. Before the Leader of the House responds, may I ask whether he can give a firm assurance about what will happen next. I endorse what the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) has decided to do. It would do her report on the subject less than justice to cram a debate on it into three or four hours. I hope that it is appreciated in the prison service. A second report has now been added. It is a report which justifies a full day's work in the Chamber. I hope that we will be assured of that.

Mr. Peart: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) will not accuse me of being churlish. I was not responsible for the long debate on the Adjournment Motion. On my first appearance as Leader of the House I had to accept the arrangements that had been made. I am merely trying to help my hon. Friends, my present responsibility having started today. I have had a word with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and, if it is possible, he could make a statement, if he wishes to do so, which affects the point raised on Durham Prison by my hon. Friend and others. He could make it at ten o'clock, or after. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] Or

before that. If we do not spend a great deal of time on the Education Bill, my right hon. Friend can make his statement almost immediately.

Mr. Maudling: Further to that point of order. I do not think that is a satisfactory suggestion, although I am sure the Leader of the House is trying to be helpful. The House had been expecting a full day's debate on this subject before the Adjournment Motion was put down. The House, I am sure, still expects a full day's debate for which the Government must find time.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): I have followed, with respect, what the right hon. Gentleman was saying but, if the Leader of the House will permit me to say so, I had in mind that we might have two half-days. We may need a full day.

Mrs. Renée Short: My right hon. Friend does not do that to other Committees.

Mr. Callaghan: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to put my point. I did not know until 30 seconds ago that the Motion was not going to be moved, and I have taken time to prepare a statement. What I suggest to the Committee, who are now filled with outraged dignity, is that perhaps it could meet their convenience if we had two half-days, from now until 10 o'clock, and then resuming with the Question put back again on a second day. That might mean that some speeches would not be made until the second half-day, but it would meet the possibility of having a full day's debate. I do not know whether that would meet my hon. Friends. I must say to the House, with respect, Mr. Speaker, that there is a statement I wish to make. If I cannot make it, I cannot make it, because the House is master of us all. It would meet the convenience of a great many if we divided the debate into two in this way and had two half-days on it.

Mr. Speaker: We have been a long time on points of order. May I rule on the points of order as far as Mr. Speaker is concerned. We are on a Supply Day. The Supply Day has been given


by the Opposition to the Estimates Committee. If no member of the Estimates Committee whose name appears on the Order Paper moves it, then there can be no debate. It is as simple as that.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION BILL

Lords Amendment considered and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — MATRIMONIAL CAUSES RULES

6.58 p.m.

Sir Peter Rawlinson: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Matrimonial Causes Rules 1968 (S.I., 1968, No. 219), dated 21st February, 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th February, be annulled.

Mr. Speaker: If it is convenient we can consider at the same time the next Motion—
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Matrimonial Causes (Costs) Rules 1968 (S.I., 1968, No. 281), dated 21st February, 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th March, be annulled.

Sir P. Rawlinson: The two Motions concern the legal machinery which affects the changes in the mode of trial of some-think like 40,000 undefended divorce cases every year.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very difficult for anyone to address the House against a background of conversation.

Sir P. Rawlinson: The fact that the Motions concern something like 40,000 undefended, as they are known, divorce cases a year gives to the House some indication of the number of people who will be affected by this change in legal machinery. I suppose that, with the children of the families concerned, it comes to well over 100,000 people each year. Although the title of these Motions is the rather dry title of "Matrimonial Causes Rules", in fact this is a subject which is of considerable importance which affects the lives of very many of our fellow citizens.
The Matrimonial Causes Act, 1967, in respect of which these rules were made, mandatorily transferred to the county courts suits where there is an allegation of adultery, cruelty and desertion. Power was vested in the county court to grant a degree in such circumstances.
While some persons objected, for the various reasons which the House will recollect we debated in 1967, apparently that matter of principle has been generally accepted, certainly by the House. I remind the House that it was in the summer of 1967, in the last Session of this Parliament, that this decision was taken by the House. An entirely new situation arises now, because in this Session of Parliament already, the House has given a Second Reading to a new Divorce Bill, and within six months at the latest we shall know whether that Bill will be enacted into law. The Bill has within its provisions, if enacted as they now stand, certain radical changes in the substance of the divorce law.
By these rules Parliament is being asked to alter the law without changing the substantial law. The whole concept of divorce may be changed if the Bill to which I have referred receives the approval first of the Committee upstairs, then of the House, and finally of another place. The whole principle of a guilty party in a divorce suit will disappear. There will be a wholly new justiciable issue. There may be many who wish to see that happen and the House should take that into account, but is it right to change merely the machinery of a system—which, I agree, has lasted for a considerable time—when we are considering a substantial change in the law itself?
Apart from the Bill, the Law Commission is studying this matter. Great minds are considering the whole corpus of family law. The members of the Commission and their staff have been given the task of considering all aspects of the law affecting marriage, divorce, the custody of children, access to children, maintenance of the spouse, and so on. In fact, they are going beyond that and considering the position in law of a woman and her property. They are considering the guardianship of infants, and also whether we should establish family courts. This is a new concept, a new jurisdiction, and a new procedure.
I very much welcome that. It is right that the Law Commission should review this aspect of the law, and its report will no doubt be extremely useful. Therefore to alter the law by these rules, is, to my mind, a cockeyed way of undertaking reform. It seems pointless to start changing the machinery of the law if we are to change the law itself by July, or if not then by October, and then perhaps later again be asked to make another change when the Law Commission has reported. This is putting Parliament through the hoops.
What is the point of proceeding with these rules? Surely it would be more sensible, more practical, more reasonable, and more cognisant of the proper position of Parliament to wait for a few months to see what happens to the Bill which is now being considered, and then to come to the House with these rules?
My first practical suggestion to the Attorney-General is to hold up the operations of the Matrimonial Causes Act,1967, to see what Parliament finally decides in 1968 about the Divorce Bill. I hope that the Attorney-General will wait until the Law Commission has reported. If he does not agree to do that, I hope that he will agree to wait at least until the Divorce Bill has become law.
We now have an enormous amount of time at our disposal, and I hope that when the Attorney-General replies to the debate he will deal with all the points that I have raised.
Apart from my comments about this extraordinary mode of carrying out law reform, I am concerned about the merits of the rules, and the manner in which they came into existence. It might be acceptable to some of us that the county courts should deal with undefended cases which lead to the termination of a marriage, but it must be remembered that Parliament has always intended that a High Court judge should deal with divorce cases. Parliament has always taken the view that, even though a case is undefended, it should be decided by a High Court judge.
The system of appointing Commissioners, or of appointing persons under the Commission to sit as Commissioners—and county court judges sit as commissioners—was adopted only because

of the pressure of business. It was not the way in which, Parliament wanted the question of divorce to be dealt with by the courts. Now, however, as a deliberate expression of Parliamentary policy, questions such as the custody of children, access to children, the maintenance of a wife, and so on, will be decided by the county courts whose jurisdiction we have limited to disputes involving no more than £500.
Parliament has kept a close control over the tiers of judges, in the sense that the county court is a second-tier court. Its jurisdiction is extremely limited and restrained. This is deliberate Parliamentary policy, and, accordingly, and I say this with no disrespect to the county court judges—county courts are manned by second-tier judges.
We should not require parties to have their lives, their residences, and the conditions under which they live with their children decided by second-tier courts, and second-tier judges. It may have happened in the past in certain parts of the country, but it has never before been done as an act of deliberate Parliamentary policy. It has never been deliberate policy for these judges to deal with ante-and post-nuptial settlements, to award maintenance over many years, and to deal with the lump sum payments which may amount to thousands of £s. Is it sensible that as an act of deliberate Parliamentary policy we should give this power to judges who, in other respects, are limited to a jurisdiction of £500?
I have always thought that the system of Commissioners was unsatisfactory, but I know that the practice has been adopted for many years because of the pressure of business in the courts. Even though they deal with simple divorce, or simple pleas, I do not believe that the system is wholly satisfactory, yet now by these rules, we are to force the parties concerned to have important issues decided by county court judges.
Where a marriage has come to an end, the wisdom of Solomon is needed to make a just and sensible decision about the custody of the children. For this task we need the best judges. We need men of proven ability. One of the most difficult decisions which a judge has to make is that of deciding with which parent the child of the marriage should spend


his life, how often he should see each parent, how much access should be allowed by each parent, and so on. This judicial task has been performed by county court judges, but not as a deliberate act of policy by Parliament.
A county court judge sitting in the provinces exercises that function, but he does so as part of the High Court. The suit is in the High Court, and the parties can apply to have matters such as access to the children and custody of the children, transferred to the principal probate registry. The Attorney-General may be interested to know that in today's lists, out of about six summonses, three have come from a district registry. This has happened because power was given to either party to go to the district registrar and say, "I want this case transferred to the principal probate registry and have it heard in London." It would seem that it was left to the Rules Committee to decide, what, under the Act, could be sent to be tried by the High Court and not retained by the county court.
At that time many people believed that issues of custody, maintenance and access had been left for decision by the Rules Committee—and many people still believe that to be the case. As I understand it, however, when the matter came before the Rule Committee that intention of Parliament was thwarted, and it was not left to the Committee so to decide. It was said that Parliament had already decided this issue. If that is so it is a serious matter, because it means that although Parliament decided that something should be given to a committee of experts—a committee presided over by the Lard Chancellor and consisting of other judges, and the President, as well as practising solicitors and practising barristers—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It seems to me that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is criticising the 1967 Act. He cannot do that in this debate.

Sir P. Rawlinson: What I am objecting to is that there is provision that all these ancillary matters should have gone to the county court. I am saying that under the Act the Rule Committee has the right to decide whether or not that should happen. I am asking the learned Attorney-General

whether the Rule Committee considered this question before producing these rules. Before that Committee produced the rules under the Act was it allowed to discuss and decide whether these ancillary matters should go to the High Court or be retained in the county court? The answer to the question will very much affect our judgment about the rules which are now under discussion.
I would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that Section 1(5) of the Act reads:
Rules of court shall define the circumstances in which any matrimonial cause is to be treated for the purposes of this Act as undefended and may make different provision with respect to matrimonial causes of different descriptions.
Section 2(2), again dealing with powers given to the Rule Committee says that:
rules of court shall provide for the transfer to the High Court of any proceedings pending in a county court by virtue of this section in any case where the transfer appears to the county court to be desirable, and may so provide in such other cases as may be specified in the rules.
I understand that that was the position with regard to the Rule Committee when, in Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) moved an Amendment to set out this requirement instead of leaving it to the Rule Committee. In replying, the learned Attorney-General said that:
The Bill requires rules to provide for the transfer to the High Court of proceedings relating to the children where the transfer appears to the county court to be desirable. It also enables rules to be made so to provide in such other cases as may be specified in the rules. With this safeguard, I can see no reason why the county court judges should not have full jurisdiction to deal with issues of custody."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 15th June, 1967, c. 35.]
So the right hon. and learned Gentleman was telling the Committee that there would be other cases which would be dealt with by the rules. To corroborate that impression, I remind him what the late Sir John Hobson said on the Report stage of the Measure, on 15th July, 1967, when he moved an Amendment fixing the level beyond which a case should go to the High Court. He said:
I also appreciate that the Rule Committee could deal with this under its general power to make rules on these matters in such cases as it may specify.


He appreciated that it was a general power of the Rule Committee to make rules on these matters, but by making his Amendment he showed that he preferred Parliament to make the decision.
In his reply, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
The Government take the view that it would be undesirable to fetter a county court by requiring it to transfer proceedings where the amount of any order is likely to exceed a particular sum and the parties have not consented to the jurisdiction of the county court." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1967; Vol. 749, c. 1758–63.]
He did not deal with the view expressed by his predecessor about the general power of the Rule Committee to make rules on these matters.
I should like to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman what powers the Rule Committee was told it had which made it produce the rules that we are now debating. It is not only the view of some hon. Members; it is also the view of the Bar Council that Section 2(2) of the Act provides specifically for the Committee to be able to make rules in such cases.
I ask again: was the Rule Committee permitted to discuss this question or was it prevented from doing so? The memorandum which the Law Society issued referred to the objections raised by the solicitor members of the Rule Committee Put said that they were eventually satisfied by the Lord Chancellor, who said that such rules were necessary to give effect to the intention of Parliament. Did Parliament have that intention? Is that the correct interpretation of Section 2(2)?
In another place the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that others on the Committee signed with reservations. Were there reservations? If so, by whom? Were such reservations minuted? Was discussion and decision prevented? If so, although Parliament allowed the Bill to go through in the belief that the Rule Committee had power to make the relevant rules—and the Act provides that the Rule Committee had such power—the Minister refused to permit the Committee o discuss it and to make such rules.
This is a serious matter. It may be that I am wrong, and I shall listen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who will no doubt tell us about it. This

matter could be challenged elsewhere. But if the House has given a Committee of experts a certain power and that power has not been exercised because the Committee was told that it could not exercise it, a very serious situation arises.
I have only one comment to make on the merits of the rules themselves. They will be a sharp weapon in the hands of a wealthy party in divorce proceedings. A husband might be well off and his wife legally-aided, so that, in a custody case, she would be restricted to the county court scale while the husband's resources would be unlimited. Apart from the advice and representation which he could call upon, what will be the position of experts like doctors and psychiatrists who are often needed in these cases, when limited to the county court scale? What about the accountants who are often called in? All these matters are acceptable on a High Court scale, but will they be so on the county court scale? Is the balance not being shifted? The court can deal with such questions as whether George A has committed adultery with Mary Y, but we should ensure that the children are dealt with by the best possible judges.
This will mean reduced remuneration for solicitors. The Prices and Incomes Board recommended an increase in their county court income. The Attorney-General said in Standing Committee:
The rules committee which will have responsibility for these sums will undoubtedly pay regard to the principle of fair remuneration."—OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F; 15th June, 1967, c. 50.]
Have they been permitted to do so? I suspect that Parliament has been fobbed off with a Rule Committee which has been met with the Minister's diktat, and that remuneration is not fair but has been reduced, although the Prices and Incomes Board said that it should be increased.
Hon. Members are quick to criticise lawyers, although it is said that there are more lawyers than representatives of any other profession in the House. The distinction should be made, perhaps, between lawyers and practising lawyers, but if there were such a great lobby, they should be turning out in their hordes this evening. We were quick to ensure fair remuneration for ourselves—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, there is no mention of remuneration in the Order which we are discussing.

Sir P. Rawlinson: I think that there is in the costs rules, Mr. Speaker, which we are discussing at the same time—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right. We should, however, leave out the subject of the salaries of Members of Parliament.

Sir P. Rawlinson: If any hon. Member wanted to criticise, it should be remembered that the majority of this work is done by the country solicitor who will suffer unfairly and service will deteriorate. Anyone who practices law does so to give a service and should be entitled to fair remuneration. I suspect that this has been settled by the Rule Committee because the solicitors signed under protest and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us the details of what other members signed under protest—

Mr. Leo Abse: With great respect, I understand that the solicitors concerned have not signed this at all.

Sir P. Rawlinson: I am obliged. I am completely wrong. The solicitors, of course, did not sign, and I should like to know whether any other members signed either of these sets of rules subject to any minute or reservation.
What is the Law Commission's view of these rules? Has this Rule Committee, which makes these rules which play an important part in the machinery of the law, the opportunity to make such rules as it thinks right under the Act? Power was not given to the Lord Chancellor, as a Minister, to decide as he liked. He must not arrogate to himself powers which Parliament did not give him. The Act speaks for itself, as do the right hon. and learned Gentleman's words in Committee and the views of his predecessor and the Bar Council.
I often detect criticism of Parliament's lack of control over Ministers, and it would be reinforced if these rules had been produced under a Minister's diktat. I have detected also a certain reluctance in matters of law to pay heed to what are described as time-consuming and sometimes as time-wasting arguments about law reform. But Parliament is a sensible body in which to debate law reform. Just as war is too important to be left to generals, so is law reform too important to be left to lawyers. The more it is discussed by hon. Members who are

not lawyers, the better for the law, because they bring the commonsense attitude of men who may serve on a jury or a bench. I hope that law reform will never be pushed through without listening to arguments in Parliament.
My principal objections to the rules are that it is wrong that they do not provide that the parties at their own risk can go to the High Court for a decision in matters of access and maintenance and that it is wrong that a rate of remuneration for solicitors should be settled unfairly. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell us that the Rules and this legislation will be postponed until a proper and sensible Measure is brought forward.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: I listened with great interest to the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson). I agree almost entirely with what he said, particularly in the second half of his speech. In the first half of it, I thought, there was a certain tendency to attack the Act itself.
In addressing the House, I want to deal, in particular, with the second Motion relating to costs. I am a practising solicitor with a small divorce practice. In the Memorandum of the Law Society, which solicitor Members of the House received, these words occur:
The Council
—that is, the Council of the Law Society—
are not aware of any other section of the community, professional or otherwise, who are being asked in the present stringent economic situation to do the same or more work at a substantially reduced rate of remuneration and at a consequent personal loss.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: The hon. Member states that that is the view of the Council of the Law Society. Does he agree that the same argument, under the same set of costs, applies equally to the Bar and to solicitors?

Mr. Oakes: I entirely agree. I was quoting the Memorandum of the Law Society, but all my remarks have equal force for the members of the Bar. This is not a demarcation dispute between the two branches of the profession. We are all in this together, and we are all in the position that under the rule the same


amount of work, or possibly more work, 'A/ill bring substantially less money.
I was a member of the Standing Committee on the Matrimonial Causes Bill. The right hon. and learned Member for Epsom quoted what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said about costs. I want to read a further quotation from my right hon. and learned Friend from the OFFICIAL REPORT of 22nd June, c. 70:
The Rule Committee is not specifically required to have regard to the principle of allowing fair remuneration in prescribing the scale and, in my submission, it is unnecessary to require it to have regard to that principle in prescribing the fixed costs to be allowed in undefended matrimonial causes. As the fixed costs will be related to the amounts which might be expected to be allowed if the costs were taxed, regard will in effect be paid to the principle of fair remuneration, but I do submit that it would not be appropriate that e Rule Committee should be told to have regard to this principle. I am quite confident that in practice it will have due regard to it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 22nd June, 1967; c. 70–1.]
They have not had due regard to it. That is what the Motion and the debate is about. Instead of having regard to the principle of fair remuneration on a 1968 basis, they have applied a scale of costs which was drawn up over 13 years ago for an entirely different class of work from divorce work—and that is tie scale of costs which will apply to both barristers and solicitors in this very important branch of the law.
The Rule Committee, which is composed of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, two county court judges, two practising barristers and two solicitors, considered these rules, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) pointed out, the solicitor members of that Committee did not sign the rules. They did not sign the rules because the principle of fair remuneration had not been adopted. What is astonishing is that the Committe had before them, when they were considering these rules, the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on the Remuneration of Solicitors, which had been published the week before that Committee meeting. Paragraph 65 of that Report states that solicitors are grossly underpaid—no matter what may be the view of the public or of hon. Members.

Mr. Percy Grieve: May I reinforce the point which the hon. Mem-

ber makes? I hope that this will assist him. It is stated in the Matrimonial Causes Costs Rules that there should be allowable in respect of solicitors' charges, if counsel is briefed at the hearing, £40, or in a higher rate case, £43. That is in paragraph 7. I am given to understand that it is no more than a solicitor would have expected to earn in an undefended case in 1939, let alone 1955.

Mr. Oakes: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member. As far as I know, that is correct. I was at that point discussing what the Rule Committee had before them. They had before them the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board on the remuneration of solicitors, paragraph 65 of which said that solicitors are clearly grossly underpaid in present county court business, to such an extent that very many firms will not undertake it at all. They recommended that there ought to be an increase of no less than 55 per cent. in the costs of county court business. The Prices and Incomes Board had in mind this Bill, because in paragraph 66 they specifically stated that the principle of fair remuneration and their consideration of a general increase of costs ought to be regarded as essential by the Rule Committee.
What the Law Society and the Bar Council, most Members of the House and certainly members of the Committee expected was that there would be a separate scale in divorce business just as there is a separate scale for bankruptcy business in the county courts. It must be remembered that all divorces will commence in the county courts. We cannot put a petitioner for divorce, whether undefended or defended, on the same basis as a plaintiff in an action for the recovery of debt. I think that hon. Members who are members of the Bar appreciate that before the matter ever goes before the courts, solicitors have a whole host of considerations to bear in mind. We are dealing with a family and with the children. We are dealing with the future lives of the parties, and with maintenance, which may amount to tens of thousands of £s over the years. We are dealing with the matrimonial home. All these matters must be considered before the petition is ever put down, and advice must be given upon them.
This is a very human problem, and it should be related to a very different scale


from that of a man who is suing for the hire purchase payment of a motor car, for example. As a rule, a solicitor has to deal with distraught persons on either side of the divorce, not with a coherent business man who will explain the case quickly but with people often at their wits' end. He must have great patience and understanding, and it takes a great deal of time to sort matters out from the rather incoherent statements of the intended plaintiff or intended defendant. A different scale altogether is required in divorce business from that of any other business in the county court.
It is often thought by members of the public and it is thought by hon. Members who are not lawyers—it is certainly exaggerated by the Press—that solicitors make a vast fortune. The Report of the Prices and Incomes Board should have dispelled that view. In this country solicitors are very much in the position of the Red Queen in Alice—they have been running for years to stand still. My senior partner in the firm in which I work outside the House is a man of nearly 60 who should be on the point of retiring. He has suffered a very severe illness, and a lesser man would have given up work altogether. He cannot sit at a desk to work. In fact, he works not eight hours a day, not 10 hours a day, but 12 or 14 hours a day—after 20 or 30 years in practice—because solicitors find themselves in the position of having to run fast in order to stand still.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that, unlike a number of other occupations, a solicitor—particularly the senior partner to whom he referred—is unable, because of economic events and the tax structure, to build up a capital asset and so prepare for his retirement? Is it not all the more reasonable, therefore, to ask that he be allowed to earn a reasonable livelihood?

Mr. Oakes: That is indeed the position in which all solicitors find themselves. When the public generally consider the activities of large firms in London and the provinces, they may think that tremendous incomes are made, but these firms probably do expensive conveyancing work in the main and are not interested in divorce work. Many solicitors operate

on the theory that the money made on conveyancing subsidises the money lost on litigation. That is all very well if every firm of solicitors is doing its fair share of litigation, but that is not the position. Some firms do almost exclusively conveyancing while others must carry the burden of dealing with litigation on an unprofitable basis.
Since the Rule Committee considered this matter, another question has entered into the issue—Selective Employment Tax. It has been increased in the Budget and while I am not attacking the tax, because I support it—I supported the Chancellor in imposing it—it is a tax on services and should not be a tax on the provider of services in the sense that the solicitor provides them in the county court. Under the Act a solicitor cannot agree to a figure of charges other than that laid down. This means that he must pay the S.E.T. at an increased rate without being able to recover it from his clients. He must, therefore, pay it out of his own pocket. S.E.T. was never designed as an additional tax on the individual but as a tax to enable services to contribute to the Exchequer. This is relevant to this matter, because the scales under the rules are too low and do not provide for this extra burden which solicitors must carry.
The solicitor finds himself squeezed between the two and I therefore urge my right hon. and learned Friend to look at the rules again. It is rare for rules to be brought before Parliament and for a whole section of the legal profession—the entire solicitors' branch—to refuse to sign them. This is a danger signal which my right hon. and learned Friend must consider. We should have separate rules for divorce matters. New rules should, therefore, be introduced and they should be based on the fair and reasonable remuneration which my right hon. and learned Friend promised the Committee. Although I have the highest personal regard for my right hon. and learned Friend and admire him enormously as a lawyer and Minister, unless this is done I will not be able to support the Government if a Division is called.

7.44 p.m.

Sir David Renton: Speaking from the breadth of his great


practical experience, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) properly described this as a human problem. Almost every hon. Member in the Chamber, and probably every hon. Member who will speak in this debate, is either a barrister or solicitor. When we are talking of what to many laymen will be considered to be as dry as dust, the rules of court, we should never forget that we are dealing all the time with matters which affect the married state, the happiness of children and the wellbeing of people whose lives have temporarily been badly upset over divorce. It is important, therefore, that the House and the public should be satisfied that the Government are acting in accordance with the wishes of Parliament and that nothing is being done hastily, badly or in a way likely to lead to unexpected and undesirable results. The hon. Member or Bolton, West, therefore, made a valuable contribution and I trust that the Attorney-General will heed his remarks.
I feel rather sorry for the Attorney-General in this matter because although le must answer us, I very much doubt whether he has had to take a direct responsibility behind the scenes. As a Member of the Government, he must share the collective responsibility, of which we hope there will be very much more in the future.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) reminded us in a convincing speech that under the 1967 Act various ancillary matters were to be not only discussed but decided by the Rule Committee. In a sense, Parliament therefore delegated to that Committee the decision on those matters. No doubt because he did not wish to make too long a speech, my right hon. and learned Friend did not go in great detail into those matters, but we should remember what is stated in rule 68 onwards. Those rules cover a large number of matters; for example, an order for alimony pending suit, a child maintenance order, a maintenance order, a secured provision order, a permanent alimony order, a lump sum order and various other matters.

Mr. Grieve: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of matters like a variation of settlements order or a wife's property settlement order, matters which may involve considerable sums of money

far outside the normal county court's jurisdiction?

Sir D. Renton: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, although I said that there were various other matters dealt with. I mentioned only those which would most frequently arise.
We must bear in mind not only those matters under the broad heading of "ancillary relief" but the fact that difficult decisions which have far-reaching effects and which involve considerable sums of money must be reached. Hon. Members with less legal experience may be tempted to say, "That is a matter for the rich. Parliament is concerned with the masses." If Parliament is incapable, by rules of court, to ensure that justice is done to the rich, then the outlook for the poor is not very good. The rich can always employ expensive lawyers—I shall return to the question of costs—and while we have legal aid, there is a shortage of lawyers generally and especially of lawyers applying the legal aid system. It is important, therefore, that the rules of court should ensure that the public have complete confidence in those rules as well as complete confidence in the way in which they are administered by judges and court officers.
As my right hon. and learned Friend said, we are making a very big change in giving this jurisdiction to the county courts, and as Parliament in making the change specifically said that the ancillary matters were to be decided upon by the Rule Committee, we should be told exactly what consideration the Rule Committee gave to them. It would be very bad if there were the slightest doubt whether there was anything in my right hon. and learned Friend's suggestion that the Committee itself was not so fully seized of the matter but that a Minister invited it just to approve what was put forward. I hope that that did not happen, but I understand that in the profession there has been some doubt about it. I look forward to the Attorney-General's being able to reassure us on that point.
It would be helpful to be enlightened on a point in the Explanatory Note to the Matrimonial Causes Rules, 1968. Paragraph (3) on page 71, states:
A woman with whom a husband is alleged to have committed adultery must be made a respondent, whether or not costs are


claimed against her (rule 13) and she will no longer be treated as a person entitled to intervene.
One view of that statement is that it means a mere change of procedure, but I would suggest that it is such an important change of procedure that it amounts, in effect, to a change in the substantive law.
Rule 13 states:
Unless otherwise directed … where a wife's petition alleges adultery with a woman named, the alleged adultress shall be made a respondent in the cause …
There may be good reasons for that rule, but the system whereby the woman named has had the right to intervene but not the obligation to become a party to the suit is one that has worked for a great number of years, and worked with reasonable satisfaction. If this change is being made merely by rules of court, we should be told exactly why it is being changed.
I hope that the right hon. and learned Attorney-General will heed the advice of his hon. Friend and arrange for the Matrimonial Causes (Costs) Rules to be withdrawn, and to be reinstated when the matter, which is of very great importance, has been given further consideration.
The background to the complaint of the hon. Gentleman and of my right hon. and learned Friend is that in England and Wales today there are more law students than ever before and their numbers increase as law schools are enlarged and new ones are created, but the number of lawyers relative to the amount of work that has to be done is nothing like enough. We all know it. We know it at the Bar. In the solicitor branch of the profession it has caused acute trouble in the administration of the legal aid scheme. With that as a background, and bearing in mind what the Prices and Incomes Board has said, it seems most extraordinary that in order to achieve a relatively minor economy the Government should have possibly made the situation even worse by reducing the remuneration payable.
I am all against any branch of our profession being thought by the public to be overpaid, but the scales laid down here amount to about the same as was being paid 30 years ago, and before.

In those circumstances, if we want to see the legal aid scheme as applied to the new county court jurisdiction in divorce to go successfully, we should make sure that the remuneration offered to solicitors will be sufficient to attract enough solicitors to do the work. If that is not done, the intentions of the Government and of Parliament will be frustrated.
I endorse what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend about what I can best describe as chickens and eggs and carts and horses, although he did not use those words. We all want to see law reform—goodness knows, we have had law reform in pretty well every year since the war, and it will go on, I think, for many more years—but this is a branch of the law in which we have to be fairly sure-footed when we step forward.
It seems very strange, when we have the substantive law being dealt with in a divorce Bill going through the House, when we have the Beeching Committee sitting—and, we hope, not taking too long over its deliberations; it has had a fair amount of time already and is likely to report before very much more time has elapsed—and when we have the Law Commission nearly ready, presumably, to put forward proposals covering the whole range of family law, to introduce these rules, some of which are controversial, and to invoke the jurisdiction of the county court in divorce matters in the particular way in which it is proposed to be done. My right hon. and learned Friend was right to challenge the Government. We should be making sure of every step forward in a delicate matter like this which, as the hon. Gentleman said, affects mankind at large. These are human problems wrapped up in legal clothing, but we want to make sure that the legal clothing fits properly and is suited to every occasion.
I hope that hon. Members who are not members of our profession will forgive us for taking up fortuitously available time—out of evil cometh good—to discuss this important matter; and that the right hon. and learned Attorney-General will be able to help us to some extent.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) said that he had his interest to


declare since, as he said with characteristic modesty, he had a practice which included a small divorce practice. Let me say with customary immodesty that I equally declare my interest, because I have a very large divorce practice. This does not mean that anything I can say would add to the weight of the argument of my hon. Friend except so far perhaps as precisely because of that it is open for me to speak on this subject with a little more detachment.
I suppose that it would weary the House if I followed the course which has been already so well trodden by the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson). In much of what he said I am sure he spoke for all of us, or almost all of those present. It is curious with what unanimity the House is speaking tonight. Once again the Attorney-General is the stag at bay, as he has been ever since he started on this ill-favoured matrimonial causes legislation. I do not share the implied condemnation of the purposes of the Act itself which perhaps may have been seen within the right hon. and learned Gentleman's contributions, because I have long yearned for a Measure—and long urged a Measure—which would enable solicitors to deal with divorce in the county court for which they are well equipped.
Equally, I do not raise any objections on these rules, because they will mean that much more will be done by county court judges and county court registrars for they are men who have had greater experience, certainly in the provinces, in dealing with divorce cases than many High Court judges. It seems sad that the Attorney-General once again has to come here on the defence, having successfully aroused, as I prophesied he would, the ire of the whole of the legal professions. I recall the rough words he used against me, doubtless imagining that I was exaggerating the position, when I warned him that he was moving forward to a complete confrontation with the solicitors' profession.
The situation now is that when we come to these rules we find the solicitors, who are honourable men, found it quite impossible through their representatives, or at least those who spoke for them on the Rule Committee, to put their signatures to the basic rules we are discussing

tonight. How could they? Of course, they knew quite well the history of this matter. They know quite well that the real reason behind the Bill was not, I regret to say, a new zeal and passion for reform which inspires much of this Government's legislation. It was only because the Government had come to the conclusion that the burden of divorce on the Legal Aid Fund was unfortunately very high.
I appreciate their concern; it is concern over a social question, but of course the increased burden was certainly not due to the fact that the Legal Aid Scheme was uneconomically administered. It was not due to the fact that it was ill-administered. Nor could it have been said in any way that there was a waste of public money. It could not be said that it was due to a mercenary attitude, or cupidity on the part of the legal profession. It never has been said that this is due to any of these matters. It could not have been said that here was another of those scandals which should have been referred to the Public Accounts Committee. There was no suggestion of that kind.
There is a simple reason why there is this burden on the Legal Aid Fund. The burden is there, of course, because we have given, and we must take pride in giving, the same facilities to those who are without much means as to those who are wealthy to be able, if they wish, to go into the courts. So it is that in 1956 there were some 27,000 petitions for divorce and in respect of those 13,000 were legally aided, 10 years later, in 1966, the total number of petitions filed had risen to about 45,000 of which some 31,000 had legal aid certificates granted.
The fact is that the reason for this burden which this Government have decided they want to deal with is that many more people are in a position to take advantage of the Legal Aid Scheme and wish to take advantage of it. If that is the position and if the Government find it intolerable, they could at least say to the House, "We find it intolerable and we have decided, because we are really prompted only by financial matters, that we are not going to permit people with incomes as high as at present to take advantage of the Legal Aid Scheme". They could have said that,


but of course it would have been highly inequitable. It would have meant that they would be savaging all their Socialist principles, but at least they could have said that.
They could have taken up another attitude and decided that so pressing, apparently, was the need to save what they claim can be saved, £300,000 or £400,000, that they were so desperate, that they would insist on having a new permissive divorce law. They could have said, "We will permit divorce by consent. We regard these questions as so important, to save £300,000 or £400,000, that we shall radically alter the substantive law and take the initiative to allow people to divorce more easily." If that is to inform and inspire divorce Bills in future, if that were the attitude of mind of the Government because they wish understandably to reduce costs, they could have done so. On the other hand, if they wanted to make divorce more difficult they could have done that and it would deter people and reduce the number of petitions. But they did not do any of these things.
They say they are determined to reduce costs. They say to solicitors, particularly those who, unfortunately, have comparatively small practices and do a limited amount of divorce work in the provinces, "In a period of rising costs we shall reduce these fees, even though the matter has been referred to the Prices and Incomes Board and the Prices and Incomes Board who with complete detachment, having made a complete assessment of the position has come to the conclusion that the existing scales which we are imposing on you are something like 55 per cent. less than they should be." Is it surprising that solicitors, who certainly are not the most radical of people as a profession, who certainly are not the sort of people who lightly invite confrontation with any Government, had reached their limits and found it necessary to protest, as they are protesting, against the imposition of rules which in any event are so totally premature?

Mr. James Dempsey: Would my hon. Friend like to comment on the opinion that the rates of remuneration paid to solicitors and other legal personnel in legal aid cases

are rather generous? Would he like to express a point of view on that?

Mr. Abse: It is not for those of us involved in the matter to make an assessment. It is fortunate for the legal profession that the Prices and Incomes Board has on the matter we are discussing made its assessment and come to the conclusion that in this particular respect they are receiving 55 per cent. less than they should be having if they are to get a fair remuneration held out by the Attorney-General in Committee.
It is extraordinary that these Rules are introduced by a Government who could normally have pointed to their reforming zeal and who could have got all the kudos, as they are entitled to get, from the establishment of the Law Commissions and for their elasticity. After three years in power, with this great record behind them, the Government choose to opt for the miserable picture of a direct confrontation with the whole legal profession. It is sad. It is impolitic. The implications of it have not been considered by the Government. Solicitors are part of the opinion forming process. Their views are still respected. They are very articulate, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General knows to his sorrow.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): Not too much sorrow.

Mr. Abse: I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend so praises my own articulate plea for the profession. He should not under-estimate, as I fear the Lord Chancellor did in another place, the amount of work which has to go into the preparation of a divorce case. I understand, though, how easily my right hon. and learned Friend could have been misled. There were other days when he was gracious enough to accept briefs from me. On those occasions the most succinct of briefs were presented to him. He will agree that they were short and pert, but that they always masked the great deal of work which had to be done so that the matter could be presented with great clarity to my right hon. and learned Friend, who, taking full advantage of such briefs, with his inimitable charm and profound knowledge of the law invariably made all our clients extraordinary happy.
However, my right hon. and learned Friend should not be misled by such experiences. The fact that he was presented with such briefs, not only by myself but also by many other solicitors, does not mean that a solicitor's work can be assessed by the amount of time that a case takes in court. It is unfortunate that the practice followed by so many of us of subsidising litigation—by in some respects playing Robin Hoods—should be perpetuated by these rules. A considerable number of smaller firms—and, indeed, larger firms—will undoubtedly be driven into the position of refusing, because it will not pay them—in fact, because they will lose money—to take on work which they should take on. It is natural that they will be attracted to the work which will give them a fair living. It is equally natural that when they find they are making a loss upon such work they will turn from it.
I understand that in a similar debate in another place the Lord Chancellor pointed out that solicitors have been told in the Report from the National Board for Prices and Incomes that conveyancing charges need readjusting. That is relevant to this matter, because it is logical to argue that in answer to one's plea that one is hard done by in county court costs one is told to make adjustments in conveyancing costs, as the National Board said in a very careful and fair Report.
In another place the Lord Chancellor advanced an argument which I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will not adopt. The Lord Chancellor said that he is now waiting for the Law Society to make its comments upon the Report of the National Board and that, on receipt of the Law Society's comments, the Government will consider them. That is not the way to proceed. As the National Board has made this Report, the bodies concerned should be given fair opportunity and fair time to collect the opinions of the profession and to present their report. In the light of that, the Government should concern themselves with these rules.
Many weighty arguments have been presented for the postponement of these rules. There is now an additional argument, in the light of the Report of the National Board. Solicitors should be

given full opportunity to decide what they wish to do or what they suggest should be done so that they can readjust their conveyancing fees, as a consequence of the Report of the National Board. To put the cart before the horse in this way is an additional reason for solicitors to think that an affront is being committed by the passing of these rules.
I very much regret that the Government have, from the beginning, taken such a short-sighted attitude. They will not save the amount of money they have in mind. That saving is illusory. The Government have over-stated the amount which can be saved. At the end of the day they will find that they have gone through unnecessary opprobrium, all to no purpose. This is becoming a habit of theirs. This, presumably, is a precursor of the general prices and incomes policy and the legislation that is to come. Although I recognise that Governments have to take unpopular decisions and have to be bold, I do not understand why the Government so gratuitously must invite so much bad feeling from the whole legal profession. I join other hon. Members in expressing the hope that these unfortunate rules will be postponed.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. Ian Percival: I support my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) on both Prayers. I propose to confine myself mainly to the question of solicitors' remuneration, but I support my right hon. and learned Friend's plea on the main rules to this extent. There may be substantial arguments both ways as to what matters and ancillary matters should be left entirely to the county court judge and in respect of which ones the parties should have a discretion. If the Rule Committee had discussed this question and had reached a corporate decision on the matters which the House clearly left to that Committee, the House could not complain.
The aspect upon which the whole House—there is nothing party about this—looks to the Attorney-General and, in his absence, to the Solicitor-General to help it is the question which was raised by my right hon. and learned Friend. Can it be right for the Government to say to the House, "We will leave those matters for a Rule Committee, consisting of a


panel of experts, to discuss and decide" and for there then to be a situation, that discretion and those functions having been given to that Committee, in which the Committee did not discuss those matters as matters at large and as matters on which its views were welcome?
I repeat my right hon. and learned Friend's request. I hope that we shall hear a little more from the Attorney-General about what happened in the deliberations of the Rule Committee. Were the members of that Committee invited to express their opinions as to whether there should be a right in any particular case for the parties to choose the High Court; or was the whole matter pre-empted, as the talk which is going round leaves one to believe? Was it not made clear that the Committee's views on this question were not really wanted, that the matter had been decided and included in the draft rules?
No doubt, the draft rules were laid before the Committee. I make no complaint about that, provided that they were laid before the Committee as a subject for discussion, if, on the other hand—as there seems some reason to believe—they were laid before the Committee not as a subject for discussion, not as containing matter upon which the views of the Committee were desired but as something which had already been pre-empted, a serious question of principle is raised. It is not right for this House to be persuaded to leave a discretion to a Committee of this kind if thereafter the Committee will not be invited or allowed to exercise that discretion.
There are only two people who can help the House in this matter, the Law Officers. I am sure that both of them take the view that, as Law Officers, they are the servants of the House. Here is an opportunity for them to render a service to the House, irrespective of party. Let them tell us what happened. If what we believe may have happened has happened in fact, let us have it out in the open so that we may make sure—I am certain that they personally would wish it—that such a situation does not arise again. If the Government intend that they should have the power to say what the rules are, let them take responsibility in this House and write the provisions

they want into the Act itself so that we may discuss them here.
I come now to the question of solicitors' remuneration. It is always difficult for anyone to get excited about someone else's pay. I think it unlikely that I shall hold any briefs in undefended divorce cases in the county court, so I can fairly say that the provisions of these rules are of no financial interest to me as an individual. If this were a matter simply of solicitors' income or profits, I might be less interested and say that it was no affair of mine. But there is far more in this matter than the mere question of how much solicitors should earn. It involves matters of wide public importance.
The question of solicitors' remuneration affects our whole system for the administration of justice. It is not possible to exaggerate the importance for every man, woman and child in the country of having an efficient system for the administration of justice. The administration of justice touches all of us in almost every aspect of our lives, not least those aspects in which we British claim to have a great interest, namely, our individual liberties, the liberties of our fellow subjects, and the preservation of those liberties against the depredations of the State. There is nothing which can assist the subject in these matters save the law.
Because we pay lip-service to the idea that the administration of justice is important, we have one Committee after another sitting on the matter. We had the Streatfeild Committee a few years ago, and now we have the Beeching Commission, which we hope will report soon. It ought never to be forgotten that it does not matter how well we organise our system unless we have the right people, and the right number of people, to work it. Furthermore, in view of what has been said and done about these costs, it is necessary to add the reminder in certain quarters that the solicitor's profession is a vital link in the administration of justice. That is where it all starts. Some of it is dealt with entirely by solicitors. Under this Act, more will be dealt with by solicitors. But, even if solicitors do not do it all themselves and they go to counsel, it all starts with them.
I do not doubt the Government's desire to reform the law, by which I mean not just change it but improve it—the two are sometimes a little confused—but they


are in danger of producing a result very different from what they desire by putting too heavy a burden upon practitioners and causing a breakdown in the very system which they desire to improve. In the past three years, we have had a large burden of complicated legislation, legislation which taxes the skill and experience of any practitioner on either side of the House. It is very time-consuming. It means that the citizen has to seek advice more often because he cannot understand the law. The solicitor, even if he is lucky enough to understand some of it, has to spend much longer in explaining it. In many more cases, he has to admit that he cannot understand it, he goes to counsel, who in turn says that he does not understand it, and then the wretched lay client says, "What an ass the law is". The whole system is in danger.
A great many more people are needed to work these changes in the law if they are to be worked at all. Are we getting them?
In his speech in another place last Thursday the Lord Chancellor said that it is estimated that the solicitors' profession is already 5,000 under strength. I think that that means that a 25 per cent. increase is needed to get it up to the number which can provide the service the citizen needs. The shortage is not only in private practice. Hon. Members who are in the profession will no doubt correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that that reference was to a shortage of 5,000 in the practising profession of solicitors, and does not allow for the shortage of lawyers in other fields, not least in Government Departments.
All of this is of direct relevance now. I am not thinking only of the question of an individual solicitor's pocket but of whether we shall have enough solicitors to provide the service that people reed. Hon. Members opposite with great experience of this matter have given instances of why the remuneration is too low and why it cannot cover increased costs and so on. The strength of their case is that this does not need any proof from their side. Everybody from the Lord Chancellor down agrees that the scale of remuneration now proposed is wholly inadequate. The noble and learned Lord said on Thursday:

One thing that is quite plain is that county court fees—and this applies to both barristers and solicitors—could not possibly be right, …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 4th April, 1968; Vol. 290, c. 1451.]
And yet that is the scale which the Government propose, and indeed up to now are providing, for the remuneration of a body which has a public service to perform. The Government are providing for a scale which, in the Lord Chancellor's own words, could not possibly be right.
In addition to those already raised by other hon. Members, there are three serious objections to it. First, there is a question of principle. No matter whose remuneration it is talking about, it is quite wrong for the House when it has the duty of prescribing remuneration, to lay down a scale which, on its own admission, could not possibly be right. How can that make sense? How can it be sensible as a question of principle?

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I have followed the debate with interest and agree with everything that has been said about solicitors' status, their work and the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board, which recommended a 55 per cent. increase in county court costs. But is the hon. and learned Gentleman really saying that the very year in which every other worker in the country must accept a certain level of remuneration across the board is the right one in which to apply what he suggests?

Mr. Percival: I am glad that some non-lawyers are intervening, because it gives the opportunity of clearing up questions which might otherwise go by default. If the matter were approached as the hon. Gentleman suggests, he might have a point. But this question is based on a misconception of what is happening. This is not a matter of limiting solicitors to what they are already earning. The Prices and Incomes Board, curiously enough, says that that is not enough and that it must be increased—and soon—even having regard to all the economic circumstances. It is not a question even of keeping remuneration where it is. These rules provide for a lower rate of remuneration for what is, broadly speaking, the same work done in a different place. I do not know of any other profession or occupation in which anybody has yet been asked to


do more than to hold his horses, or to keep his increases to what is called the norm. I do not know of any case in which people have been asked to take a cut in the pounds, shillings and pence in addition to the cut which results from the steadily rising costs they must suffer.

Mr. Leadbitter: There is no difference between us here. It is a question of clearing up a small point. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has adequately answered my question except in this: does not he agree that the Budget proposals require a 1 per cent. reduction in the standard of living of all our people, and will he accept, therefore, that this is the wrong time of the year in which to put the proposal he makes?

Mr. Percival: Again I am glad if there is one point outstanding and the hon. Gentleman gives me a chance to deal with it. I think that he is a little optimistic about the figure of 1 per cent. I would think that the Budget proposals will result in considerably more than a 1 per cent. reduction in the standard of living, but I suggest to him that there is no connection between that and the point about which we are arguing.
All of us, whatever our remuneration, will have to suffer the consequences of the Budget—namely, that our remuneration will be worth 1 per cent. or 5 per cent. less. But what is asked of the solicitors' profession is that, on top of this, they should suffer an additional cut which no one else has yet been asked to suffer, as far as I know, by having not only to put up with the fact that the value of what they are getting will become less but with taking less in terms of £s, shillings and pence than they are already receiving, which of itself is based on a scale fixed many years ago and already patently out of date.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: Pursuing that point, would not my hon. and learned Friend agree that the new cost rules proposed mean that the fixed remuneration for a solicitor could be between £40 and £43 for undefended divorces, which is what a solicitor was earning in 1939 for an undefended divorce? Could he state what other section of the community would be prepared, in the interests of the national economy, to go back

to what they were earning £ for £ in 1939 in their job, forgetting entirely the devaluation in the purchasing power of the £ since 1939?

Mr. Percival: I do not want to get involved in too much detail here. I am a member of the other profession. I prefer to express what I think to be a disinterested view of these scales, which I hold as someone who is concerned about the efficient administration of justice. I suppose that, if everyone's situation got to the stage—as perhaps it may before long—when they were asked to take a cut in net earnings, so be it, but that is not being asked here. It is not a question of being asked to do anything. The solicitors are having forced down their throats a scale which, by common consent, cannot be right and which has the consequence of paying them less than they have been paid for doing similar work until recently, which scale itself is perhaps 20 or more years out of date.
I return to my point of principle. I urge upon the House that it cannot be right, it is a misuse of the trust and power reposed in this House, for this House, when it has the power to prescribe what someone shall be paid, to prescribe that remuneration at rates which everyone from the Lord Chancellor down, agrees cannot possibly be right. We ought not to do it in any circumstances.
It is even more serious—and this raises another question of principle on which I hope we shall have the assistance of the Law Officers—and is even worse when it follows an assurance given by the right hon. and learned Attorney-General in these terms when the question of fair and reasonable remuneration was discussed:
The Rule Committee is not specifically required to have regard to the principle of allowing fair remuneration … it is unnecessary to require it to have regard to that principle…As the fixed costs will be related to the amounts which might be expected to be allowed if the costs were taxed, regard will in effect be paid to the principle of fair remuneration …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 22nd June, 1967; c. 70.]
There is nothing critical of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in what I am saying. I have no doubt that, when he gave that assurance, he did so in the belief that it would be honoured, as any hon. Member with any experience of the law would fully have expected, because I


do not think that any hon. Member, even without the assurance of the Attorney-General, could posibly have foreseen that the Government would fix remuneration at anything less than was fair and reasonable. Here we have a case where we have that specific assurance from the right hon. and learned Attorney-General which I have no doubt he gave only because he genuinely believed that it would be adhered to but which has been set at naught by the manner in which this has been dealt with. These rates are by common consent not fair or reasonable and have been forced upon the Rules Committee by the Government after that assurance given in the House by the Government. I hope that the Attorney-General will feel the same about that as the rest of the House feels—that it is singularly unfortunate that such an assurance cannot be honoured.
In a speech which I have read with the greatest care, the Lord Chancellor appeared to lay all the blame at the door of the Prices and Incomes Board. I was somewhat surprised, as hon. Members opposite may have been, by the sort of criteria which the Board thought suitable `or determining what was reasonable remuneration. However, be that as it may, the Board cannot be blamed for this, because, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes), the Board itself says that the determination of the charges for divorce work in the county courts, which have et to be fixed, should be consistent with its recommendation for an increase in the level of county court income. It could not be more specific. It expected the Rules Committee to fix the new costs in accordance with the views expressed by the Board, and that is just what the Mules Committee, or the Government, has not done.
I read the Lord Chancellor's speech with great care several times. The Prices and Incomes Board has expressed the view that county court costs are too low and ought to be increased by an average of 55 per cent., but that some other costs are too high. The Lord Chancellor has apparently accepted that view and said, "We must now negotiate the new scales of costs". What he has done is to fix the fees for this very important work at levels which he himself has said are not enough to cover even the cost,

while at the same time saying, "Now we will negotiate about an increase, but at the same time you will have to accept some decreases in your other fees".
I hope that we shall hear from the Law Officers about this. No doubt taking this course will strengthen the hand of the Lord Chancellor in those negotiations. He dealt himself a few more trumps by including in the costs which have to go up these new divorce costs. His position will now be very strong in the negotiations in which, as he made it clear, he considers that the solicitors will have to give ground on their other fees. I question as a method of fixing remuneration for an entirely new branch of work such as this, in which the principle should be that those who do it should have fair and reasonable remuneration from the start.
I hope that the Government will think again. It could just be that a course of action which has attracted such universal criticism from within the profession is wrong. I hope that we shall not hear, "We must look at this in the broad context", and, "All the speeches have been in support of a narrow self-interest". I do not believe that. There is at stake a matter of wide and great importance, because unless we establish, accept and abide by the principle that all those who are expected to play a part in that most important of services, the administration of justice, should receive fair and reasonable remuneration for doing so, the system of justice which we profess to love and admire, and which is certainly the envy of the rest of the world, will no longer retain that position. If it is allowed to slip back from that position, we shall be doing this country just about the greatest disservice we can do it.

8.45 p.m.

Sir Barnett Janner: We have all listened with considerable interest to the speeches which have been made, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will have listened with equal interest to the points which have been raised during the debate. I make an appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has said, he knows what is at stake.
I should; of course, declare my interest. I am a solicitor. From a varied and


interesting practice, my right hon. and learned Friend could, I am sure, make a speech emphasising the points which have been made even much better than those who have, nevertheless, done so well during their speeches. My right hon. and learned Friend knows that this is a matter which affects a large section of the community who will now seek remedies in the people's court—the county court—which has been accustomed, year in and year out, to deal with problems and cases relating to the so called man in the street.
We are discussing an extension of the activities of a court which, throughout the whole of one's experience, has never paid solicitors adequately, unless they have been so engaged with county court work that they had nothing else to think about—in other words, coming into court with case after case and devoting practically the whole of their time to that kind of practice.
That situation cannot prevail for cases which are as widespread as the kind which we are now discussing. The county courts are to deal with matters which have exercised the minds of High Court judges and frequently of eminent counsel, as well as eminent solicitors. I do not think that the nation as a whole understands what is involved. Those who come with their cases to a solicitor's office begin to realise what it is about because the time that is taken to get at the salient facts in a case certainly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool has said, cannot possibly be measured by the words of the brief which hitherto has been produced for counsel.
Apart from professional people, how many—including, I venture to suggest, counsel, who have never had experience of being in a solicitor's office—know what is involved? It is not what is ultimately produced in the way of the brief, as I have said, that is the test of the work involved It consists partly in eliminating material which is irrelevant, but to the person who is involved in the case very relevant until and unless he realises what is legally at issue.
A person goes into a solicitor's office and gives his version of the matter. It takes a very long time for an experienced person to investigate which part of that

material is of importance to the case. This procedure applies in divorce cases to no less an extent than it applies in other very involved cases. This means that an experienced man or woman in the office, perhaps a principal, perhaps a managing clerk, has to spend hours sorting out what is important. The client often returns time after time until ultimately the material has been so sifted out that it is ready to present to a court. The witnesses concerned think that everything they have to say is relevant, and they have to be extremely carefully handled so that they do not feel that an injustice is being done to them if material they produce is not used.
It may sound very mundane to put the matter in this way in the House, but the individuals who prepare the case have to be paid, the rent of the office has to be paid and the secretaries have to be paid. The payment for these services is not the same as it was in 1955, yet as the House realises, solicitors have received no increase in the place of fees since that time.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend, who asked why solicitors should not take lower fees as do others, has left the Chamber. He asked why solicitors should not reduce their present fees. Solicitors have rendered a very big service to the country in legally aided cases. Instead of taking the full fee, they have taken a cut fee on taxed costs, a fee which has been at the same rate for some 13 years.
These are matters that should be known to the public. Many silly remarks are made about the solicitors' profession, which would not be made if people understood the work they do. If they understood, instead of denigrating the work they would realise it is extremely important in the administration of justice. The Prices and Incomes Board, which has investigated every detail of solicitors' activities, is made up of independent persons who are not solicitors. They investigated whether the income or the price charged is a reasonable one. They came to the conclusion that a solicitor doing only county court work would not be able to exist because his fees are 55 per cent. less than he ought to be charging to enable him to live.
Over the years thousands of cases have been taken on by solicitors without any


remuneration at all, in the same way as medical practitioners treat some patients for no fee. Do hon. Members think that every case which comes into a solicitor's office is regarded as one in which payment is expected? I am sure that no one can name any other profession or trade which would be prepared to be paid 55 per cent. less than what is reasonable. I appeal to the Attorney-General to take that into account and deal with the matter on that basis.
As it is entitled to do, the Law Society watches the interests of its members, but it also watches the interests of the community as a whole, as shown by its disciplinary rules, and so on.

Mr. Grieve: It is not only in consequence of its disciplinary rules, but by reason of the fact that the country has entrusted the Law Society with the administration of the Legal Aid Scheme that it looks after the interests of the community.

Sir B. Janner: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is not often that that kind of compliment is paid here to the profession, but when it is, we are grateful to those who appreciate what is being done.
The Law Society has inquired into the matter. It has not done so lightly, and the results of its inquiry have been submitted to the Lord Chancellor and to the Law Officers. Why have they not accepted what is an eminently reasonable case? The Law Society points out that the fixed costs, and the scale of tax costs, passed by the Rule Committee were based on Section 4 of the County. Court scales of costs which were formulated in 1955 and came into force o a 1st January, 1956. This means that the position has remained unaltered for more than twelve years. Can any hon. Member tell me of any other example of remuneration remaining the same for the last twelve years?
County courts are now being asked to do the work which used to be done in the High Court, and solicitors are being called upon to do what counsel used to do. It might interest the House to know that a solicitor will receive about 15 per cent. to 18 per cent. less than he would have done had he prepared the same case before, when he did not have the responsibility of presenting it to the court.

Hitherto, a solicitor prepared a case, and counsel took the responsibility for any slip that was made in its presentation.
We must get the new situation into its proper perspective. Previously a solicitor was able to rely on counsel to a certain extent. Now he will have to depend upon himself, unless he is able to get counsel to take a case in a county court, and I am not sure that many counsel will be prepared to take such cases, bearing in mind the scales of remuneration that are being suggested. I do not know whether any of the hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite will see fit to go into a county court, in view of some of the scales that are being allowed.
This is an extremely important matter from the point of view of the community. I do not wish to reiterate what has already been said, but we must get the question of this payment into its proper perspective. We want the work done properly, and we must remember that a solicitor cannot afford to lose money, any more than anybody else can. He cannot carry on a practice if his overheads are not covered. He certainly cannot live unless an additional payment is made to him. He has to study for a long time before qualifying and he has large responsibilities when in practice. In those circumstances I appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend to do something about the situation and not to allow an unfortunate position to arise, which will make it impossible for a solicitor to carry on his work.
The idea that, because some other kind of work done by a solicitor is more remunerative than some people think it should be, the litigation department of a solicitor's office should be run at a loss is ludicrous. How can a solicitor employ a managing clerk and a staff—especially if his firm is a small one—and be expected to run a litigation department if it is not paying albeit in some small measure? That is what will happen in the present contemplated situation.
In the circumstances it is likely that in future those interested in advocacy and others who would like litigation work will not be persuaded to enter the profession. We shall not obtain the necessary executive and all other kinds of staff who are required in this kind of work. In the long run this will deal a severe blow to


people who are seeking redress of their grievances in the courts.
That situation is not to be desired. It has already been stated that the profession is 5,000 short of its required numbers. We certainly do not want to take a step which will make it even less desirable to enter the profession simply because people will not be able to make a likelihood at it. It is an honourable, important and responsible profession. It is necessary for the country and for the people, and it is in that sense that I appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend to revise his ideas on this matter.

9.9 p.m.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: rose—

Mr. J. T. Price: On a point of order. The Chair has already called seven or eight hon. and right hon. Gentlemen. It is obvious that at the moment the House is almost completely occupied by professionally qualified lawyers, who have a personal interest in this matter. I submit that it is about time that we had a speech from a lay Member who was representative of the public interest and who could put the opposite point of view, regardless of which side of the House he came from. The lawyers are all ganged up together.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The Chair is conscious of the difficulties of a situation like this, but it would be proper if hon. Members were to leave the selection of speakers to the Chair.

Mr. Carlisle: I am sure that, if the hon. Gentleman tries to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will probably be successful, but if he had been in the House earlier, he would have heard one non-lawyer, his hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) say that as a layman he sympathised with the arguments advanced from both sides.
This is an extraordinary place. I came here intending to speak on crime and would probably have made that speech at this very moment. At least it is an ill wind that blows no one any good, because, as the previous business fell, we have had a good deal of time to consider these important rules.
Many hon. Gentlemen have mentioned solicitors' costs, but, although I sympa-

thise, I want to come back to the question of how the rules were passed. Some people, including, we understand, the Rule Committee, feel that it could not consider the type of rules which some of its members considered within its jurisdiction. Section 1(3) of the Act says:
Every matrimonial cause shall be commenced in a divorce county court, but rules of court … may provide for the transfer to that court of matrimonial causes which remain undefended.
Subsection (5) says:
Rules of court shall define the circumstances in which any matrimonial cause is to be treated for the purposes of this Act as undefended …
A reasonable interpretation was that the Rule Committee could lay down rules stating in what circumstances a case was deemed to be defended or undefended.
This was to some extent substantiated by the Attorney-General when he said in Committee:
The Bill requires rules to provide for the transfer to the High Court of proceedings relating to the children where the transfer appears to the county court to be desirable. It also enables rules to be made so to provide in such other cases as may be specified in the rules."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 15th June, 1967; c. 35.]
One understands from memoranda received from hon. Members that it was clearly indicated to the Rule Committee that it had no right to consider this matter and that a decision on whether a case should be treated as undefended had been decided by Parliament without reference to the Committee.
I hope that we may hear whether this matter was raised and some members of the Committee signed the rules with a protest, and why the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not consider that it was within the Committee's competence to decide this question. There is no doubt that to a large extent these rules produce a complete absurdity in the present jurisdiction of the county court. In normal matters the county court judges have jurisdiction to decide actions relating to sums of up to £500. Yet, taken at its very lowest, their jurisdiction in the county courts on divorce would enable them to decide ancillary matters amounting not to £500 overall but to £500 a year in maintenance, perhaps continuing for 20, 30 or even 40 years. It cannot be outside the knowledge


of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General that many cases are settled in the courts in which maintenance of £1,000 is commonplace. Whereas we limit the jurisdiction of a county court judge to £500 in a straightforward action, by these rules we are giving him jurisdiction to decide cases which may run into tens of thousands of pounds, without Parliament having expressed a view whether such jurisdiction is suitable in the county court.
As most of my practising time as a barrister is spent on the northern circuit, I am mindful of the argument which says that divorce cases in the High Court have normally been carried out by county court judges and that, unlike in London, they have jurisdiction in matters over children and in substantial matters of maintenance. But the Government's argument justifying the introduction of the Act was to do away with what they called the absurdity of High Court jurisdiction when the work was being carried out by county court judges. As a result of these rules, they have made the service very much the worse, because by giving the county courts jurisdiction in divorce they have at the same time given them jurisdiction in ancillary maters far outside their normal limit.
Previously it could be argued that those who served the High Court as commissioners were often county court judges, but at least their jurisdiction arose from the fact that they were sitting in the High Court. Now they are taking back into the county court jurisdiction which previously existed only in the High Court. The anomaly therefore continues. Indeed, it continues still further, because it follows from the logic of these rules that an undefended case should be tried by a county court judge but that if defended, whether short or long defended, it is a matter for the High Court. Will the Attorney-General deal with that point? If that is so, are we to understand that under these rules High Court judges will in future try defended actions? That is an obvious corollary of the provision that undefended cases are to be tried by county court judges.
I understand that the Government propose to continue the practice of inviting county court judges to sit as commissioners to try the defended lists on circuit. If that is so, they are not only perpetuat-

ing the anomaly but are extending it, since presumably county court judges will be trying long defended cases as well. I should have thought that this proved the nonsense of introducing these rules at this time; that is, at this time when it is clear that the courts are not prepared for it, when the whole of the divorce law is under change as a result of the Private Member's Bill introduced by hon. Gentlemen opposite and when the Law Commission is considering the whole question of family law.
There is no doubt that solicitors have a justifiable grievance. On 31st January the Prices and Incomes Board, on which the present Government rely so heavily, recommended that solicitors' costs for county court work should be increased by 55 per cent. because, the Board said, the work was hopelessly unremunerative. After that, these rules were laid down, with costs for divorce work in the county court based on the same scale of costs as that which the Board had said was 55 per cent. under value.
Members of both sides of the legal profession are often under attack in this House. Would any hon. Member seriously believe that chaos would not be caused if a recommendation of the Prices and Incomes Board for an increase in costs of 55 per cent. was ignored by the Government, the matter having been referred by the Government to the Board? Alternatively, would any hon. Member suggest that if the Board had recommended that no increase should take place, the Government would not accept that recommendation? Equally, if a substantial increase has been recommended, it should not be ignored.
We see that there is a considerable hardship to the solicitors' part of the profession. This must mean a loss of £30 or £40 per undefended case, although the work that solicitors are doing is exactly the same as that performed before this Act. Such a loss cannot be justified, despite the Lord Chancellor pointing out in another place that the reason for the reduction in costs was the fact that much of this work was now being done in the county courts rather than in the High Court; so that, by moving the work from one to the other, costs should come down. However, although divorce work may have been removed to the county court, it has meant only the removal of what


would otherwise have come within the High Court jurisdiction from the point of view of money and ancillary matters.
Perhaps I have spoken for too long on this issue, but had I been called to speak on the subject of crime I could have spoken for longer, although I appreciate that to do so now would put me out of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would indeed.

Mr. Carlisle: I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that I would try not to be tempted.
I ask the Attorney-General to consider again the timing of these rules, the constitutional basis on which the Rule Committee acted, and the considerable unfairness, of which one could give individual examples, that the Government are perpetrating on part of our profession by asking solicitors to accept remuneration so much below that which they were already receiving for other work.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: If it is not indecent for a lay Member of the House to intervene in a debate that has so far been completely dominated by our legal friends on both sides, I propose to speak briefly and without entering into the technical arguments that have been so eloquently put forward.
I have listened to some, but not to all, of the speeches. A good many hon. Members have already said, speaking from various angles as professional operators in the law courts, that we are here dealing with a matter of principle. I deny that to be the case. It is fundamentally a debate about money—filthy lucre—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a debate about two Statutory Instruments which have to do with matrimonial causes: money enters into it a little bit.

Mr. Price: I would not for one moment get at cross purposes with the Chair on such a matter. I need not use too much illustration of what I mean. I mean that Statutory Instruments 281 and 219—both of which, incidentally, I have read—concern the procedure by which matrimonial causes are to be conducted and the conditions under which the solicitors are to be paid. My justification for using the words "filthy lucre" is that I believe in calling

a thing by its proper name. It sometimes irritates me when lawyers who are so skilled in advocacy speak in the House—without always declaring an interest in a matter—and succeed in injecting an atmosphere favourable to their profession, something that I regard as an abuse of their position here.
This is an occasion when, if I had been professionally interested, I would never have crossed the Bar of the House—I should have been too shy to say anything. I am not professionally interested, but I do not speak entirely as one who does not know anything about what happens in the legal profession. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) knows, in a previous incarnation I had a good deal to do with his profession and its affairs—

Sir B. Janner: I have no knowledge of any previous incarnation of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price). I am sure that it must have been a very pleasant one, whatever it was.

Mr. Price: My hon. Friend would be kicking into his own goal if he agreed with me there, but I am grateful for what he has said.
The real gravamen of the complaint of those hon. Members who are barristers or solicitors is that a great deal of the business that used to be conducted in the High Court and was paid for on High Court scales has been transferred to the county court where it is remunerated on a much lower scale. The scale at one time used to be called the Liverpool Court of Passage fees. The name was altered later, but that was the sort of rate fixing trade union basis. Just as the engineers have a basic rate fixed by a 1939 agreement which is always quoted, so the lawyers always quoted the Liverpool Court of Passage fees as the basis of their remuneration.
This has all been altered by two factors. The Government, rightly or wrongly, have decided—I believe rightly—that there are so many petitions filed for divorce in these days that a great deal of the business has been blocking the High Courts to the exclusion of more important common law and criminal actions which could occupy the time of learned judges and it is common sense to channel some of the divorce work into


the county courts where it can be done much more cheaply.
You Mr. Speaker, have been in this House, as I have, for a good many years. You know that on all sorts of occasions hon. Members on the back benches, and sometimes those on the Front Benches, complain about the inordinate amount of influence which professional lawyers have on the affairs of this House. They not only operate the laws we make, but they take part in making them. In many Erections they make them more complicated than they need be, because it needs professional assistance—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Whether they do or not, we are discussing two Orders, one the Matrimonial Causes Rules Order and one the Matrimonial Causes (Costs) Rules Order.

Mr. Price: I am sorry if I have got out of order. I have made the point and will not press it.
The second thing which has caused a change of front on the part of the Government is that some years ago this House, with my support, placed on the Statute Book the Legal Aid and Assistance Act. That was a humane piece of legislation which was designed to enable people of poor means to obtain qualified professional assistance if they needed to go to law. I happen to believe that the law is better left alone; it is better not to go into court, particularly if some kind of civil dispute is concerned. Be that as it may, since we placed the reforming Legal Aid and Assistance Act, with subsequent Amendments, on the Statute Book, there has been an enormous increase in the number of persons seeking legal aid certificates. Strangely enough, the vast majority of the applications made for legal aid have been in respect of divorce.
I should be entirely out of order if I tried to make any kind of moral or ethical speech concerning divorce. That is not within our terms of reference. We are concerned with money which the lawyers get for operating or performing as advocates in the law courts for clients who have obtained legal aid certificates or otherwise. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), who at the moment is not in the Chamber, has great experience of these matters as a practising solicitor with a large practice in

South Wales. No doubt he is a very good lawyer. In his speech he strongly criticised the Attorney-General. I am not reporting what he said, because he will be able to read it in HANSARD.
He took the line that the Government were wrong. He said that on the latest available figures the number of divorce petitions in this country had risen from the relatively low figure which existed as a norm before legal aid, to 47,000 last year and of those petitions 31,000 were supported financially by Her Majesty's Exchequer, by Government grant of an unlimited amount in some cases. This is serious, because we are entitled to ask whether the vast increase in divorce productivity arises from a vastly increased level of infidelity between married couples or whether it arises because those who were previously prepared to live in sin, once the Government could give them a clean bill of health, were able to obtain divorces with the Government paying the costs of both sides, party and party.

Mr. Speaker: This is an interesting question, but it cannot be answered in this debate.

Mr. Price: I will have to leave it as a matter of reflection for hon. Members who are better qualified to answer it than I am to ask it. I have often been critical of things the Government have done. Tonight I am critical of the lawyers. The hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) said that solicitors have a justifiable grievance because of the new scale of fees prescribed in Statutory Instrument No. 281. I would not deny any professional body or any other group of workers proper remuneration for work done, but I am not convinced from the speeches which have been made that a case has been made against these rules. I am not convinced, because solicitors' practices in the main are not confined to divorce work. They are concerned with trust, wills, and all the other things.

Mr. Speaker: All the other activities do not come under these two sets of rules.

Mr. Price: With great respect, Sir, they do. If I were convinced that there was any danger of practising solicitors going to the workhouse or becoming applicants for public assistance as a result of some


wicked action taken by the Attorney-General, I should become the most humane advocate solicitors ever had in the House. I am not so convinced, because solicitors' practices are geared to property, and the inflating values of property have made millionaires of many solicitors. [Laughter.] Those who disagree with me should fight this out with the editor of the Observer who recently published an article showing that 17 of the last 21 millionaires in Britain were solicitors whose activities are geared to the inflated value of property.

Mr. Oakes: My hon. Friend's assertion is based on the theory that all solicitors' practices are concerned with all kinds of legal work. This is not so. The solicitors he is talking about—those who make the fortunes—would not take on a divorce case or a legal aid case. They deal exclusively with very expensive property transactions. This is why my hon. Friend's reasoning is so unfair.

Mr. Price: My hon. Friend is always fair and is a good friend of mine. If I were not getting sufficient business to warrant my continuing in my profession, I should seek to diversify my activities.

Sir B. Janner: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Price: I shall give way in a moment. I do not want to speak too long, but I shall not sit down yet. [Interruption.] So long as I am in order, I am prepared to speak for a long time, and so I shall if I have many more interruptions. I do not want to bore anybody, but I shall have no difficulty in carrying on with my speech.
I do not want to listen to professional "blah". I am looking at the realities of the situation. When I am told that these rules will inflict hardship on solicitors. I want that allegation proved. There is a learned society, the Haldane Society, of which I am not a member but of which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will know. The Haldane Society has many solicitors and barristers in its membership, and it has said that the Legal Aid and Advice Act has not been what this House intended it to be but has become, in practice, the lawyers' aid and assistance Act.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the Haldane Society or the legal profession in general. We are discussing two Instruments, which the hon. Gentleman has read. He knows the position perfectly well.

Mr. Price: I am sorry if I have transgressed in mentioning the Haldane Society, Mr. Speaker, but, if hon. Members who have been speaking from a purely professional and vested point of view tell us that the Law Society, the Bar Council or some other professional body supports what they say, I feel that I am entitled to give the view of a society which has many lawyers in its membership and has expressed a contrary opinion.
I do not want to bore the House by continuing the debate longer than necessary, but I must say a word now to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West. He said that solicitors would have not only to prepare the briefs but would have to go into court and deal with them in the county court because solicitors are not allowed to appear as advocates in the High Court. I am old enough to remember the days when W. H. Thompson, one of the most famous solicitors in the country, had his practice in Chancery Lane, an enormous practice. The family still have that practice, I understand. He used to go into the county court every week of his life, and he was rebuked by learned judges for going into court wearing a blue collar when he should have worn a white one. I am a little sceptical about what is said today. If solicitors are men of parts, competent men, and they do not want to go into court, they will hand the briefs, when prepared, to a suitable barrister. There are many briefless barristers looking for work from such genial, friendly and humane people as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West. So that argument is a non-runner, a complete non sequitur.
In many ways, this debate is a non-runner. On the surface, it may appear that solicitors will be required to take lower fees for divorce work, but there is far more divorce now than ever before in our history. Divorce cases have blocked all the channels in the High Court and they are now to go to the county court, to the second division, as


it were. I am all in favour of that. We are not a corporate State yet. We are a democracy. If there is a far greater amount of work being channelled into solicitors' offices, any solicitor who does not want it because it is unremunerative will find that there are plenty of solicitors prepared to take it on. They will not be black-legging on their trade union if they do, a very powerful trade union, as we all know.
I have taken longer than I intended, but I have spoken at some length because there are occasions when this House seems to be a monopoly assembly for members of the legal profession. On other occasions hon. Members on both sides of the House who are not present tonight do not tire of saying, "Lawyers again!". You know what I mean, Mr. Speaker—that everything is set up for the advantage of lawyers, like the last two years' income which was allowed to go tax-free—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not pray Mr. Speaker in aid, and he must keep to the two Instruments we are discussing.

Mr. Price: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I am trying under great difficulties to do just that. I am trying to keep in order. I am behind the red line, and I want to stay behind it. But I pray in aid of perhaps a few transgressions that, in view of the totality of the income and remuneration a solicitor of reasonable competence can earn in the present sort of set-up existing in the courts and elsewhere, we have no need to apologise to anybody, including my right hon. and learned Friends the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General, who deal with these matters on our behalf. They will find me 100 per cent. behind them, for the first time since I have been here on a matter like this. I think that they are right, and I shall give them my vote if there is a Division.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: We enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), but I shall not take up his points in detail. I do not think that he had really done his homework. I do not think that he really knew the details of what he was discussing, and I am sorry that he missed the earlier part of the debate.
It is a pity that so many lawyers are having to take part in the debate. I start by declaring my interest. I am a solicitor, though I do not practise very much in court, nor do I do a great deal of divorce work. I do not, however, approach the debate on the narrow basis of arguing the case on behalf of solicitors. I believe that the public interest is involved, for I am convinced that if proper remuneration is not paid to solicitors the public will certainly suffer in the end. It is purely in that spirit that I speak.
What are the short and simple facts behind the debate? I was a member of the Standing Committee on the Act. On 22nd June we had a debate on solicitors' remuneration and when I asked the Attorney-General certain questions and he replied:
The Rule Committee is not specifically required to have regard to the principle of allowing fair remuneration in prescribing a scale and, in my submission, it is unnecessary to require it to have regard to that principle in prescribing the fixed costs to be allowed in undefended matrimonial causes. As the fixed costs will be related to the amounts which might be expected to be allowed if the costs were taxed,"—
then there are these important words—
regard will in effect be paid to the principle of fair remuneration, but I do submit that it would not be appropriate that a Rule Committee should be told to have regard to this principle. I am quite confident that in practice it will have due regard to it. Accordingly, I hope that the hon. Gentleman opposite will not be disposed to press his Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 22nd June, 1967; c. 70–1.]
We have the position clearly stated there by the Attorney-General, that the Rule Committee would pay proper regard to the principle of fair remuneration. We now see that the Rule Committee has had no such regard to that principle. At present the average amount of profit costs paid to a solicitor for handling a simple divorce case from beginning to end is £70. I do not regard that as a high figure, and I very much doubt if any other hon. Member does either, bearing in mind the amount of work involved. The hon. Member for Westhoughton talked about advocacy, but he forgot that the solicitor's task is not advocacy but rather the handling of the whole case from the moment the client first walks into his office to the end of the case and the decree absolute.
My experience is that solicitors do not handle divorce business to make money. The hon. Gentleman referred to some solicitors who had vast practices in commercial work. That may well be so, but the hon. Gentleman was well answered by his hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) who pointed out that the solicitors about whom we are mainly talking tonight are those in small provincial towns who feel that in handling a divorce case they are also rendering a service. I do not think that anyone here really disputes that contention. If solicitors simply wanted to make money, they would go into another profession.
The point has been well made in another place. Lord Granville West said:
I think it can be said that in the Provinces much work is done by solicitors without thought of remuneration. But, of course, conditions in these days are different from what they were in the early days. As has been stated, rents and rates have increased, salaries have gone up, and it is indeed a very difficult time for provincial solicitors."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 4th April, 1968; Vol. 290, c. 1439.]
I remind the right hon. and learned Attorney-General also of what the Lord Chancellor said and I hope that he himself will deal with the point in replying to the debate. The Lord Chancellor said:
… I agree—and I have said this publicly for the last two years—that solicitors are having a difficult time. They are overworked. There is a great shortage of solicitors. The Law Society themselves reckon that they are short of 5,000 solicitors—about 25 per cent. There are 30 jobs for every newly qualified solicitor now. They cannot get staff. Their overheads go up all the time, and they are subject to S.E.T.
One thing that is quite plain is that county court fees—and this applies to both barristers and solicitors—could not possibly be right, because they have not been increased for 12 years.
The Lord Chancellor himself said that, and all of us practising as solicitors know that it is true. Solicitors are having a difficult time and to be fair I accept that some members of the Bar are having a difficult time as well.
As I have said, the present profit costs amount in a simple case to about £70. Under the rules we are discussing, a solicitor will now receive £45 for doing precisely the same amount of work. This is a reduction of 35 per cent. It is totally unacceptable and unfair. Of course I realise that, in future, these cases will be

dealt with in the county courts instead of in the High Court, and I will deal with that point.
The hon. Member for Westhoughton has already left the Chamber, having arrived late. He seemed to suggest that, because cases are to be dealt with in future in the county courts, there should be lower remuneration. I hope that the Attorney-General will deal with this specific point. I imagine that he will argue that solicitors are expected to show exactly the same high standard of work and care in the future as in the past. Surely no one suggests that because we are transferring jurisdiction to the county courts, any less standard will be expected from solicitors in the work they do. On this point the Lord Chancellor raised another argument. He said:
There are two other points that I should like to mention. It is not accurate to say that solicitors who work in the High Court and who used to have an average of £65 a case are now getting less for doing exactly the same work. It will not be exactly the same work for this reason: that in some dozen different ways we have simplified the new Rules. We have taken out steps which used to have to be taken, like an affadavit to support a petition, like the solicitors having to find the petitioner and serve him. The court is now going to do the serving, so it will not be exactly the same. Solicitors will not have as much work as before."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 4th April, 1968, Vol. 290, c. 1450 and 1453.]
That really is not a very good point because the new rules being prepared will make only a marginal difference to the work solicitors have to do. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will also deal with this in his reply because, basically, the true fact is that solicitors will be expected to do almost exactly the same amount of work as they are doing today for a very much smaller remuneration.
I think I know why the Government have gone wrong in their approach to this matter. The Lord Chancellor emphasised the rising cost of legal aid and we are conscious of the fact. He said that the total has risen to about £6 million a year. The reason for the rise in the cost of legal aid is not the rise in solicitors' remuneration. It has already been said that in 1956 27,753 petitions were filed, of which 12,981 were legal aid cases. In 1966, the figure rose to 45,610 petitions, and 31,188 legal aid certificates were granted. The cost of legal aid has


risen because of the tremendous rise in the number of cases which are heard. The Government have created the difficulty for themselves by starting off by saying that it is their intention to cut the cost by a given figure, of £400,000. They are now trying to implement their intention at the expense of the solicitors, and it is this fact which solicitors resent so deeply.
This is entirely unfair and utterly wrong. If the Government accept the principle of fair remuneration, they should keep to that principle. What they are doing is trying to make a savage cut at the expense of solicitors on whose shoulders so much depends for ensuring that we have a just society and also for ensuring that difficult and important cases are handled with that high standard of care and attention which solicitors throughout the years have always been prepared to give.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. W. O. J. Robinson: It is fortunate that my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) has left the Chamber and saved me the task of apologising to him for another solicitor entering the debate. I ought to make that confession—apparently it is a matter of confession—but also to say that I have never undertaken county court work, and I hope that I shall never appear in the county court in future as an advocate and certainly not as a respondent.
Many criticisms were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton about the failings and not the virtues of members of the legal profession, but I have always thought that one of their virtues was the ability to see both sides of a question. It may be a disappointment to my colleagues in the legal profession, but I shall approach this matter from a somewhat different angle.
Hitherto I have very properly followed the Government's attitude towards the prices and incomes policy. I have read all of the Reports of the Prices and Incomes Board and have thought it right to accept them. For that reason I approach these two orders in the light of the Board's comment on the remuneration of solicitors in the Board's Report, Command 3529, of February this year. There are two ways in which that Report can b; applies to these rules. I find the two

conflicting to some extent, but I should like to quote those parts of the Report which have a direct bearing on the rules and my approach to them.
Paragraph 63 says:
We have shown that in general county court business is unremunerative
That will not be denied by anybody and it obviously goes a long way to fortify the arguments against the rules. Paragraph 65 says:
… we conclude that an increase in charges for county court work would be justified. The question is how large the increase should be.
That too strongly fortifies the arguments against the rules.
On that same page, the Report gives the Board's conclusion about increases in remuneration for county court work as a whole. This means that an increase of some 55 per cent. would be appropriate and hon. Members have argued that that should be the yardstick to be used in applying these rules. The Report refers specifically to the possibility of these rules coming before the House. It refers to the fact that divorce court work is to be transferred from the High Court to the county court and goes on to refer to the fees which should be fixed for this purpose, saying:
The determination of the charges for divorce work in the county courts, which have yet to be fixed"—
and which are fixed by the rules—
should be consistent with our recommendation for an increase in the level of county court income.
This is a very strong argument and has been used as such by hon. Members who have said that the rules set fees at far too low a level. But we ought not to stop there. We ought to pursue the other points which the Board makes. This is the point which we should have in mind when discussing the rules.
The Prices and Incomes Board states quite clearly in paragraph 68:
We have made it clear that no increase in the total income of solicitors is at present called for".

Mr. Reginald Eyre: In reading that extract and making that observation, has the hon. Member borne in mind that Selective Employment Tax deprived solicitors of £3 million in the previous year and will


deprive them of half as much again in the next year?

Mr. Robinson: I accept that. I do not think that it invalidates the spirit of the argument which I am endeavouring to put. The Prices and Incomes Board states clearly—and the question of S.E.T. would have been present in any case—
but certain forms of income should be reduced while others are increased".
It cannot be denied that the Board is saying that if there is to be an. increase in fees in one direction, there must correspondingly be a reduction in other directions. That is a material point in considering our approach to the rules.
If, as hon. Members would require, the fees should be increased by 55 per cent., they must surely be ready to concede that in another direction there should be a corresponding reduction.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The argument is sound but it cannot be advanced on this occasion. No hon. Member would be in order if he suggested where fees should be reduced elsewhere.

Mr. Robinson: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, for transgressing.
If I may continue with the report of the Prices and Incomes Board, which is material to the question, it states:
It is a matter for the County Court Rule Committee to consider how to adjust individual fees so that in total an increase of about 55 per cent. in income results for the present level of work.
Again, there are two cogent arguments. On the one side there is the argument that if there is to be an increase in fees, it must be offset.
I was very much impressed, against my will—because I have been strongly impressed by the arguments advanced by the Law Society against the rules—by the argument advanced by the Lord Chancellor in another place when he described this as a package deal. I hate to hear that expression used again so quickly. The Lord Chancellor said, however, that it was a package deal. It could well be argued that in those circumstances, the orders should not be interfered with unless and until the profession, in consultation with the Government, is able to present a picture which will entail the overall balance of fees that the Prices and Incomes Board suggested.
There is, therefore, a strong argument, reluctant though I am to say so, for the Government to say that the Statutory Instruments should either stand as they are or that, alternatively, as I should prefer, their application should be deferred until the negotiations inherent in the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board have been completed. I say reluctantly, but because I think it is right, that we should apply the same standards to the legal profession as have been applied to every other trade union and every sector of industry. We should not defeat the rules.
I appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to undertake, if he is able to do so, that the rules will be withdrawn and others substituted immediately the desirable results suggested by the Prices and Incomes Board can be achieved.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Percy Grieve: All too often when one rises to speak in debates in the House of Commons, one does so very much in the spirit of the long-distance runner who has to cover a great deal of ground in a very short time. When today's debate on the rules began at an altogether unwontedly early hour, I wondered whether, on this occasion, one might not approach them in a rather fuller spirit and develop one's arguments at greater length.
Indeed, it seemed to me when we set out on this debate some time before 7 o'clock this evening that far from being a running course that we had to traverse, there was a desert of time before us in which we should need a good deal of the water of good argument. So it has been. We have been fortified in crossing the desert by pellucid and clear water, water of good argument, on both sides of the House, and I hope that when we listen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General winding up we shall find he has drunk of that water.

Mr. Speaker: May I take the hon. and learned Gentleman back to the oasis of order.

Mr. Grieve: I am delighted to return to that oasis and to set forth the few observations which remain for me to make at this stage of the debate this evening.
I shall not go over all the arguments which have been advanced against the Instrument dealing with costs. I shall refer to them in a few minutes very briefly. It would give altogether the wrong impression to the outside world were it thought that we in this House were principally concerned with that matter, important though it is, and important though it is that the solicitors who will be called upon to do the work of divorce now in the county courts shall be properly remunerated for the work they do. Rather, I want to concentrate on the Matrimonial Causes Rules dealing with those matters which now shall be dealt with in the county court.
I share the view, so well expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Sir D. Renton) among others, that that is the matter we should concentrate on in this House, and that, for reasons of public policy, for reasons of humanity and for reasons of the great importance of the issues involved, certain matters should not be forced into the county court straitjacket.
In my submission to the House it is, for instance, wholly wrong for the question of maintenance, which may involve thousands of pounds, to be brought within the purview of a jurisdiction, which on grounds of public policy and others, however strong the judges who may sit there, is limited to £500.
I have here a letter which I have re-received from a country solicitor, which says:
Maintenance awards following decrees absolute have in my own experience varied from £200 a year to £3,000 a year.
This is in the country. It would be within the experience of many people in this House that maintenance awards may e 'weed that figure. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General, is it right that matters of that magnitude should be left by this House in the hands of a court the upper limit of whose juridiction is £500?
I turn, now to other ancillary matters, the question of the custody of children and the maintenance of children. If there is any matter in this country which

should be within the High Court's jurisdiction if the parties so desire, it is surely matters affecting the welfare of children following upon a decree of divorce. It simply is not good enough to say that we are making a blanket arrangement whereby not only divorce but all the vitally important matters that follow it should be put within the jurisdiction of the county court judge. For that reason, I urge upon the Attorney-General that these rules should be reconsidered.
When my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdon was addressing you, Sir, earlier this evening, I intervened to draw his attention to the fact that the various settlements and wives' property settlement orders are all among and ancillary matters coming within the scope of these rules. These rules are effecting a revolution in our law, and we should approach this revolution with great care, with great circumspection, and with great hesitation. For those, among many other reasons which have been urged by my right hon. and hon. Friends, I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom in praying against the Matrimonial Causes Rules.
With regard to the rules about costs, the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) suggested that this was a gathering of lawyers all bent on defending their own interests. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that very little has been said during the debate about the Bar. Members of the Bar in this House have spoken almost with one voice against the imposition of this straitjacket of costs on the other branch of the legal profession. This does not always happen. Perhaps the severest critics of the barristers are those of the other branch of the profession, and perhaps the severest critics of solicitors are members of the Bar, but on this occasion members of the legal profession have spoken with one voice, because they realise what is involved.
Hon. Members on both sides have referred to the recommendation of the Prices and Incomes Board. It is extraordinary that in the light of this recommendation the House is considering proposals which are designed to cut down the remuneration of solicitors in a very important branch of their work. One cannot


shut one's eyes to the fact that, particularly in the country, on circuit, a large part of the bread and butter of a solicitor's profession is the preparation of divorce work. These rules will make a substantial difference to their real income at a time when, as has been said, they have been adversely affected by the S.E.T. I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes), to point out that under these rules the payment to a solicitor for doing the necessary preparatory work when counsel is retained is unlikely to be more than £40 or £43. I am told by some solicitors who have written to me that that is below the figure which prevailed in 1939, let alone

1955. The remuneration for similar work then was about £46.
It is no use the hon. Member for Westhoughton saying that solicitors are getting too much anyway, that their remuneration must be cut down. We cannot expect an honourable profession to do work—which I concede has increased to a large measure because of the passing of the Legal Aid Act—for a remuneration which is being diminished to a degree which would be regarded as intolerable by any other profession or occupation in the country.
The ground has been gone over thoroughly by my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I trust that I have not taken too long. I ask the House to join me in refusing to allow these rules to proceed any further.

10.10 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): When he spoke in this debate my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) described me as a stag at bay. I notice that he has not remained to the end of the chase. I remain free and uncaptured by the blandishments of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have opposed the proposals of the Government. The only refreshment offered to this stag at bay being some pellucid water, you will not be surprised, Mr. Speaker, if I find it necessary to reject that invitation.
At the beginning of the debate the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) and other hon. Members invited the Government to suspend the operation of the Matrimonial Causes Act and of these rules because of the existence in the proceedings of the House at the moment of the Divorce Reform Bill and because of the possibility that family courts may be introduced in the future.
When I presented the Matrimonial Causes Bill to the House I ventured to submit that it was not merely introduced in the expectation of reducing the heavy cost of legal aid which, in divorce matters, amounted last year to over £2½ million—which is no insubstantial sum. I also submitted that the Bill, which is now an Act of Parliament, was a valuable Measure for tidying up the administration of justice in this field and for introducing useful procedural changes.
I adhere to that view about the virtues of the Act and think that it would be quite wrong to hold up its implementation pending a major Bill rationalising the substantive divorce law. The Divorce Reform Bill is a Private Member's Bill and it is not certain that it will pass in its present form. Even if it does, it is unlikely that it will come into force before next year. The Matrimonial Causes Act, on the basis of which the rules that we are now debating have been formulated, was passed as long ago as 21st July of last year, and I submit there is no justification for postponing its operation for a further year or so.
The necessary rules have been made and great care has been given to their preparation. I submit that it is desirable that the courts and the legal profession should become accustomed to the transfer

of jurisdiction in undefended cases to the county courts before having to assimilate more changes.
As to family courts, I fear that the coming into being of those courts is very much a matter for the future. The jurisdiction of the courts in family matters was in the first programme of the Law Commission. The Commission has been in touch with the Royal Commission on Assizes and Quarter Sessions that has otherwise been unable to give time to this matter, and I fear that there is no immediate prospect of legislation in respect of family courts of that kind being a ground for postponing the operation of an Act of Parliament passed nearly eight months ago.
The second main matter mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom involved his anxiety as to the ability of county court judges to deal with ancillary matters, such as custody and maintenance disputes where large sums of money are involved. Last year, 38,500 undefended cases were heard in the courts, of which 34,000 were tried by county court judges. It is true that they were dressed as High Court judges, but they were county court judges and I have had no evidence that they failed to try issues of custody and maintenance reasonably competently.
For years, county court judges have been dealing with adoption, which entails particularly difficult matters, and for 20 years they have, in practice, as High Court judges, been dealing with custody and maintenance. Of course, they have, as judges, to deal with far more difficult issues than a mere undefended divorce case, which lasts about ten or 12 minutes and the remuneration is not inadequate. The solicitor conducting the case himself will get about £60 a case and he can do about half-a-dozen in a morning, which is not bad going. Of course, I do not want to mislead the House into thinking that that 12 minutes' work is the main part of the time taken by the solicitor or the effort given to the case—

Mr. Graham Page: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman withdraw that comment, which would lead the public to think that solicitors can earn six times £60 in one day, which is ridiculous nonsense?

The Attorney-General: I did not say anything of the kind. I said that a solicitor could, if he had the good fortune to have so many undefended cases, which he will, hereafter, be entitled to do himself, each of them taking about 12 minutes, be able to complete half-a-dozen in a morning—

Mr. Abse: This is a ridiculous statement, which could mislead the public, in view of the fact that the fee which the solicitor would get represents months of work, dozens of interviews and the collection of all the evidence. It is a gross distortion of the facts to present them in that way.

The Attorney-General: I have said twice and I will say a third time, if it gives any comfort to those hon. Members who are solicitors, that the actual time taken in court and the skill and effort involved in the presentation of the case is not the solicitor's major contribution when he does the case himself. Obviously, it is the climax of a substantial volume of work. I was trying to say that undefended cases in a county court generally do not involve profound problems either of intellect or of law. This is, therefore, well within the competence of county court judges and they have been coping with these matters for 20 years with a good deal of skill to the satisfaction of the parties.
A good deal of the debate has turned on the complaint that the rules which we are debating have not provided for the transfer of ancillary proceedings to the High Court, and it has been suggested that there has been some "rough roading" of the Rule Committee. Section 2(2) of the Act of 1967 requires rules to provide for the transfer to the High Court of any ancillary proceedings pending in a county court where the transfer appears to the county court to be desirable, and may so provide in such other cases as may be specified in the rules. Rule 80(1) provides that where an application for ancillary relief is pending in a divorce county court, a judge may, if it appears to him to be desirable, order that the application be transferred to the High Court. In difficult or exceptional cases dealing with ancillary matters, the county court judge may order the transfer of the application to the High Court. I hope that that

reassures the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the difficulties which may arise in the exceptional case. The rules fulfil the requirements in the first part of Section 2(2) which I have mentioned.
It has been contended that it should have been free to the Rule Committee to exercise the power conferred by the second part of the subsection by providing for the transfer to the High Court of contested ancillary proceedings. But to do so would be contrary to the intention expressed in the debates on the Bill—and there were substantial debates on the Bill—that where a case is undefended any issue arising in it should normally be dealt with by the county court.
I pointed out in Committee that the Committee presided over by Lord Denning and other Committees have said that the judge who deals with the substantive issues should as far as is practicable also deal with ancillary matters. An Amendment requiring any issues in respect of the custody of a child to be determined by the High Court was rejected in Committe as, too, was a proposed new Clause giving a right of appeal to the High Court where a maintenance order was made in the payment of more than £500 a year. On Report, an Amendment to require rules to provide for the transfer to the High Court of an application for maintenance where more than £500 a year, or a lump sum of £2,000, was likely to be awarded, was negatived. It was negatived after I had pointed out that for many years an unlimited jurisdiction had been exercised by county court judges and registrars in their respective capacities of commissioners of the High Court and as district registrars.

Sir P. Rawlinson: Section 2(2) provided that there should be transfer when the county court thought it desirable and "in such other cases". The Attorney-General told the Committee that there would be other cases as might be specified in the rules. Will he tell us what are the other cases, since it was the impression that other cases would be those such as the custody of children and such like matters?

The Attorney-General: The rules were required to provide for the transfer of


ancillary proceedings to the High Court where the transfer appeared to the High Court to be desirable. In my submission that has been provided for in the rules and it would not, in my view, be right to fetter the county court judges' discretion by requiring the transfer of proceedings where the amount of any order was liable to exceed a particular sum.
Reference has been made to Section 2(2) of the Act and, in fact, the Rule Committee has exercised that power. The object of conferring the power in the second part of Section 2(2) was to enable the rules to provide, as has been done, for the transfer to the High Court of an application under Section 22 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1965, for maintenance on the ground of wilful neglect to maintain where the respondent denies liability on a ground which implies misconduct by his wife or a denial of the jurisdiction of the court. Rule 99(1) requires the judge in such a case to order an application to be transferred to the High Court, and that is the exercise of the power given to the Rule Committee by the second part of Section 2(2). The decision of the Rule Committee was in furtherance of the power given to it by virtue of that Section.
The main debate, however, has turned on the question of the fees and the proposed level of remuneration set out in the rules. When the Measure was introduced, one of the objects was to seek to relieve the burden on the Legal Aid Fund. As I have said, in 1966–67 the total of legal aid for civil cases was nearly £6 million, and of that nearly £2½ million was attributable to matrimonial causes. Over and above that, the taxpayer had to face a considerable bill for legal aid in criminal cases.
When the Measure was conceived it was estimated that the transfer of undefendeds to the county court would save about £400,000 a year. When this aspect of the Measure was debated it was made perfectly clear—I certainly sought to make it clear—that although the solicitor must be adequately remunerated for his work, the costs he will hereafter get must be costs on the county court level. The scale costs would be on the county court scale, amended in appropriate cases, and the proposed fixed costs which the solicitor would be free to accept or reject—if he did not like them he could go by

way of taxation for his costs—were based on the amount which would be allowed on the county court scale in a straightforward undefended case, taking into account the saving in the costs of taxation and the likelihood of procedural simplification under the new rules.
The average figure for solicitors' costs in the High Court was £65. The proposed fixed costs would give the solicitor, on average, £59 if he conducted the case without counsel, and £49 if counsel was briefed. There would be special allowances for discretion cases, for consent orders and for maintenance and legally-aided petitions. Those figures were put forward by the Lord Chancellor as affording reasonable remuneration; and it would be for the solicitor to say whether he elected to accept them or chose to go by way of taxation.
I ventured also to point out in respect of counsels' fees that in the case of petition founded on adultery or desertion the total would be £16 10s. compared with the average £18 12s. 4d. allowed in the High Court after making the statutory 10 per cent, deduction in legal aid cases. Later there was consideration by the Rule Committee of the fees payable to counsel for settling petitions and for advice on evidence which increased the fees payable to counsel for their work in the county court to a figure almost the same as they now get in the High Court.

Mr. Eyre: In referring to the debate in Standing Committee on the Matrimonial Causes Bill, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that since that date there has been the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board on the Remuneration of Solicitors? In his argument so far he has been flying in the face of paragraph 55 of that Report and also ignoring the increasing burden of Selective Employment Tax. Will he deal with this in detail, because it causes resentment?

The Attorney-General: Yes, I will, in much detail because obviously this is quite crucial. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am sorry that that has been greeted by groans, but, owing to the unexpected course of events, some of us have been waiting here for four hours to have the privilege of addressing the House on this matter. This is an important matter both for the taxpayer and the solicitor. I will


endeavour to deal with it, I hope at not excessive length.
I was dealing with the scale that is provided for in the rules. Rule 5 provides that the costs of matrimonial proceedings in a divorce county court shall be on scale 4. Scale 4 is the highest of the county court scales. The modifications which are proposed take account of the special features of divorce proceedings and in particular of the fact that an application for ancillary relief may frequently involve more work and responsibility than the substantive proceedings. Scale 4 divorce enables an ancillary application to be treated as a separate proceeding for attendance for a trial, for attendance at an adjourned hearing, taxation brief on hearing and refreshers. So there is room in respect of those items for special fees to be paid.
Rule 7 of the costs rules prescribes the amount which may be allowed where the solicitor elects to have his costs fixed instead of taxed. In addition to the fees that are proposed, I have already said that additional allowances were provided as a result of the deliberation of the Rule Committee for discretion cases and for additions to counsel's fees for settling petition and for advice on evidence.
It is not accurate to say that the Rule Committee was asked to pass a costs rule without discussion. Although the Lord Chancellor indicated that he could not agree to treating undefended divorce as other than county court work, or to anticipate the recommendations of the Prices and Incomes Board, a number of points of detail were discussed and a number of alterations made in the approved provisions submitted to the Rule Committee. I have illustrated these in the alterations in the fixed costs I have referred to. It is quite right, however, that I should tell the House that the solicitor members of the Rule Committee were not prepared to agree to the provisions in regard to costs. It is no secret that the view expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom reflects the point of view that was argued by the barrister members of the Rule Committee.
It was contended, as it has been contended during the debate, that in accordance with the recommendation of the National Board for Prices and Incomes

there should be an immediate increase of 55 per cent. in the figures proposed by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. The relevant recommendation appears in paragraph 66 of the Board's Report:
It is a matter for the County Court Rule Committee to consider how to adjust individual fees so that in total an increase of about 55 per cent. in income results for the present level of work. Major changes in the work of the county courts—e.g., an extension of county court jurisdiction—will increase the amount of income accruing from any given change in charges though it may adversely affect solicitors' income from High Court work. We have noted the intention, as from this year, to start all matrimonial causes in the county courts, and to transfer to the High Court those which are defended. Formerly all divorce work was within the jurisdiction of the High Court. The determination of the charges for divorce work in the county courts, which have yet to be fixed, should be consistent with our recommendation for an increase in the level of county court income.
The information that appeared in that last sentence did not seem to be entirely clear and further information was sought from the Secretary to the Board, who wrote as follows to the Lord Chancellor's office:
The Board's intention was that this recommendation for an increase of £2·4 million …
I remind the House that the National Board's recommendation in regard to solicitors was that, broadly speaking, the remuneration of solicitors was satisfactory, that it had kept pace with the increase in the remuneration of those receiving wages and salaries, that solicitors had bettered the history of dentists' salaries and had not done quite as well as the doctors; but that as to part of solicitors' work, and in particular that in the county court, remuneration was inadequate and that an additional sum of £2·4 million should be made available to solicitors for that work. Two other elements were added providing for an increase in solicitors' remuneration, but, to counter the increase in those partials of solicitors' work, there was the recommendation that there should be a reduction in the fees paid to solicitors for the work of conveyancing; so it was indeed a package deal.

Mr. Graham Page: The Attorney-General seems to be referring to some letter which contradicts the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes to the Government. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is referring


to a letter, ought he not to produce it to the House and lay it on the Table?

The Attorney-General: I shall be very happy to do so.

Mr. Graham Page: Why not before the debate and not now at the end of the debate?

The Attorney-General: If it is desired to know the full history of the prices end incomes matter, as I am asked to inform the House about it and think it proper to do so by referring to this letter, I will certainly see that the letter is put in the Library.

Mr. Eyre: Will the Attorney-General now go on and deal with the question of Selective Employment Tax, which over-cancels the item he has mentioned?

The Attorney-General: All in the Lord's and Mr. Deputy Speaker's good t me. I was dealing with the explanation by the Board of its proposals. It said:
To make charges for divorce work consistent with the rest … will mean the application, with such variations as may be necessary, of the appropriate scale, either in its present form so long as that remains in use, or in its revised form when that is settled by the Rule Committee.
Having regard to the views of the Prices and Incomes Board, my noble Friend was of opinion that, until the Board's Report has been accepted and the County Court Rule Committee had amended the ordinary scales of costs to give effect to the Board's recommendations, the costs of divorce proceedings must necessarily be based on the existing county court scale. The Law Society asked for an opportunity to consider and make representations on the Board's Report. That opportunity has been granted, and my noble Friend is awaiting receipt of the Law Society's representations. When these have been received, it will be for the Government to decide whether to accept them and to accept the Prices and Incomes Board's recommendation, and in due course for the County Court Rule Committee to consider how to adjust individual fees so as to produce a total increase of 55 per cent.
It may well be that the Rule Committee will prescribe a larger increase than 55 per cent. for debt collecting work and for mechanical items such as attendances at the court office and a smaller per-

centage for discretionary items such as preparing for trial. If this principle were applied to the costs in matrimonial cases, the increases in solicitors' remuneration for that class of work might prove to be nearer 30 per cent. than 55 per cent. As consideration of the Board's Report inevitably has taken and is taking some time, and it is undesirable to hold up the transfer of divorce jurisdiction for so long, the only course consistent with the assurances given in Parliament was to proceed on the basis of the costs as at present allowed. In my submission, it would have been quite wrong to make an immediate increase of 55 per cent. in the proposed costs, as the solicitor members of the Rule Committee suggested.
The existence of the Government's prices and incomes policy prevents any increase in the remuneration of a profession which is governed by statutory scales of costs unless and until the Prices and Incomes Board approves in principle an overall increase, and, second, its recommendations are accepted by the Government. Until that time, the costs for any new block of work like undefended divorce business which is given to the county court must be regulated by the appropriate scale, and under this scale they will be regulated by the highest scale available. That is embodied in the rules which I now ask the House to approve
May I make a final reference to what the Board has in mind in the matter? This is a letter published in the Law Journal of 21st March, 1968, of which, I know, the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is an avid and regular reader, so that it will not take him by surprise. The letter from the Board said:
What the Board intended was that charges for divorce work in the county courts based on whichever of the existing county court scales of costs was thought appropriate, should be increased if and when the scales are revised in order to secure the total increase of about 55 per cent. in the profession's income from county court work which the Board have recommended. The Board did not expect that the Rule Committee could take account of the Board's recommendation in relation to divorce work alone before any of the other recommendations had been accepted.
That is the state of the matter, and we are now awaiting the recommendations and suggestions of the Law Society.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Would the Attorney-General agree that under these rules solicitors will be required to do more work for less money?

The Attorney-General: I am glad to assure the House that the exact opposite is the case, and that solicitors will be required to do less work by reason of a large number of simplifications in that procedure embodied in the rules. The House has been so patient with me that to read out all 12 or 13 would exceed that patience, but I will merely refer to them by number, since a prescribed form of petition is provided instead of setting out in the rules the main matters to be dealt with. They are Rules 12 and 14, Rule 13, Rule 33, Rules 33 and 34, Rules 39 and 40, Rule 65, Rule 59, Rules 58, 59 and 65, Rule 68, Rule 73, Rule 82 and 86. An examination of these rules will show that there will be great simplification and a lesser burden on solicitors. I have an excellent brief here in which I have even more confidence than some of those which I receive from my hon. Friends, if that were possible.
I was asked about the impact of S.E.T. The Prices and Incomes Board said in Paragraph 76 of its Report:
We referred in the previous chapter to certain factors which might diminish the profession's income over the next year or two. One of the most important is the Selective Employment Tax. Though our statistics largely relate to that period before this tax was in full operation, we estimate that in a full year it might amount to more than £3 million over and above what we have included in our figures. There may be offsetting factors, partly operating from outside the profession—e.g the possibility of rising prices of houses and hence of conveyancing charges—and partly operating within the profession—e.g. the scope for increasing charges to clients in certain fields. The net effect of these movements cannot be forecast, and this has prevented us from taking them into account in the changes we have recommended in the previous chapter.
In the next paragraph, the Board said:
… we feel that the position of the profession may have to be reassessed in the fairly near future, in the light of up-to-date statistical information … We consider this to be an additional reason for the Government's making a standing reference"—
of solicitors' incomes—
which would enable us to exercise a continuous check and to judge the moment when a review was likely to yield useful results.

The Government will no doubt consider that recommendation in due time.
I was also asked whether the county court judges will continue to act as special commissioners. They will, for the time being, to try short undefended cases in the provinces until there are enough High Court judges for the purpose, but they will not try long defended cases.
I was asked about a change in the rules which provide for a woman with whom adultery is alleged to have been committed to be made a respondent instead of being entitled to intervene. This has been done to simplify the procedure. It was the unanimous recommendation of the Rule Committee, and it is thought that it will simplify the proceedings in the divorce court by doing away with the separate class of "woman named".
Complaint was made about the letter I read. It was before the Rule Committee and considered by it. [HON. MEMBERS: It was not before the House."] That point has been raised and I dealt with it. For the reasons I have given, I ask the House to reject both these Motions.

10.50 p.m.

Sir P. Rawlinson: This has been a longer debate than was expected and I do not think that anyone who has sat throughout it can be very impressed by the reply of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General. He has answered a lot of questions which were quite irrelevant and to which no one attached importance. He has failed to answer the major questions put to him. He has made it clear that he supports what will be an unfair remuneration.
The Prices and Incomes Board has said that there should be a better remuneration for solicitors in this court. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered the question of whether the Measure left the House with power for the Rule Committee to decide whether the children of divorced people should be dealt with by the High Court judges or by the county court judges. He referred to Section 22, which is not relevant. It has nothing to do with Section 2 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1967, which refers to ancillary matters.
The Bar Council and other have interpreted the 1967 Act as giving to the Rule


Committee power to deal with these vital matters and we have not been told whether a Ministerial veto was imposed. If such a veto was imposed, it is a serious matter that, when this House gives to a representative committee power to deal with a matter, a Minister should take it upon himself to say that that Committe may not deal with it. We have not heard the answer to that question, and so we must draw our own conclusions.

Finally, I repeat what I said four hours ago. This really is a cockeyed way of doing law reform. Here we are dealing with the problem of the present law when upstairs at present there is a Committee of the House changing the whole substance of the law. For this and many other reasons, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the Motion.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 124, Noes 177.

Division No. 113.]
AYES
[10.55 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grant, Anthony
Onslow, Cranley


Awdry, Daniel
Grant-Ferris, R.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Peel, John


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Grieve, Percy
Percival, Ian


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Pink, R. Bonner


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gurden, Harold
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Biffen, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Prior, J. M. L.


Biggs-Davison, John
Hawkins, Paul
Pym, Francis


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hay, John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Boardman, Tom
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hiley, Joseph
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Brewis, John
Hill, J. E. B.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Clinton, Sir Tatton
Holland, Philip
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hordern, Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hornby, Richard
Royle, Anthony


Carlisle, Mark
Hunt, John
Russell, Sir Ronald


Cary, Sir Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Scott, Nicholas


Clark, Henry
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Sharples, Richard


Clegg, Walter
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Silvester, Frederick


Cooke, Robert
Jopling, Michael
Smith Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Corfield, F. V.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Stodart, Anthony


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Crouch, David
Lamboton, Viscount
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dance, James
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Longden, Gilbert
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Loveys, W. H.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lubbock, Eric
Walters, Dennis


Doughty, Charles
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Ward, Dame Irene


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
MacArthur, Ian
Weatherill, Bernard


Eden, Sir John
McMaster, Stanley
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Marten, Neil
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Eyre, Reginald
Mawby, Ray
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fortescue, Tim
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Foster, Sir John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gibson-Watt, David
More, Jasper
Worsley, Marcus


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)



Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Mr. Hector Munro and


Goodhew, Victor
Murton, Oscar
Mr. Humphrey Atkins.


Gower, Raymond
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Boyden, James
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)


Alldritt, Walter
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Anderson, Donald
Bradley, Tom
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey


Archer, Peter
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Delargy, Hugh


Armstrong, Ernest
Brooks, Edwin
Dell, Edmund


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dempsey, James


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dewar, Donald


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Dickens, James


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Buchan, Norman
Dobson, Ray


Barnes, Michael
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Doig, Peter


Baxter, William
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)


Beaney, Alan
Coe, Denis
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th&amp;C'b'e)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Coleman, Donald
Eadie, Alex


Bidwell, Sydney
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Edelman, Maurice


Binns, John
Crawshaw, Richard
Ellis, John


Bishop, E. S.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
English, Michael


Blackburn, F.
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Ennals, David




Ensor, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pentland, Norman


Fernyhough, E.
Lomas, Kenneth
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Finch, Harold
Loughlin, Charles
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
McBride, Neil
Price, William (Rugby)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McCann, John
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Galpern, Sir Myer
MacColl, James
Richard, Ivor


Garrett, W. E.
McGuire, Michael
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Ginsburg, David
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Gourlay, Harry
Mackie, John
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Maclennan, Robert
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Rose, Paul


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Hamling, William
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Hannan, William
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Harper, Joseph
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mallalieu.J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Manuel, Archie
Small, William


Haseldine, Norman
Mapp, Charles
Snow, Julian


Hazell, Bert
Marks, Kenneth
Spriggs, Leslie


Heffer, Eric S.
Mendelson, J. J.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Millan, Bruce
Swain, Thomas


Hooley, Frank
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Swingler, Stephen


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Tinn, James


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Moonman, Eric
Urwin, T. W.


Howie, W.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Hoy, James
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Moyle, Roland
Wallace, George


Hynd, John
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Watkins, David (Consett)


Irvine, Sir Arthur
Murray, Albert
Wellbeloved, James


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Newens, Stan
Whitlock, William


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Norwood, Christopher
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
O'Malley, Brian
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Orbach, Maurice
Woof, Robert


Judd, Frank
Orme, Stanley
Yates, Victor


Lawson, George
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles



Leadbitter, Ted
Pavitt, Laurence
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lector, Miss Joan
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and




Mr. Eric G. Varley.

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [27th March],

That Mr. Frank Hooley be added to the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services).—[Mr. Fitch.]

Question again proposed.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NURSES (TRAINING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Obviously depending on which way one looks at it, we are either a little earlier with this Adjournment debate or a little late. At one stage of the evening, I began to think that we would reach the Adjournment at about 7 or 8 o'clock.
This debate which I am initiating on the modernisation of the training of nurses was put down before the Prices

and Incomes Board reported on the pay and conditions of nurses. Therefore, I suppose, I may congratulate myself on foresight in putting it down. It is interesting to notice that some of the suggestions made by the Prices and Incomes Board have been made many times by hon. Members, both to the previous Government and, from time to time, to the present Government. Those suggestions have been by-passed by successive Ministers of Health.
I remember that during the 12 years when I served on a hospital management committee, when I was chairman of an establishment committee and, therefore, concerned with nurses, there were a number of improvements for which we were pressing there which, we thought, would improve the recruitment of nurses. Recruitment, and to a certain extent the rate of wastage, have improved during the last few years. Nevertheless, we are still deficient in recruitment and far too many nurses who join the hospital service leave to go into other jobs either during their training or just after it. I


therefore want to suggest one or two improvements to this situation.
The late starting age of nurses has always been a problem and should have been dealt with many years ago; a somewhat high starting qualification is demanded from girls, particularly by the teaching hospitals. There is the difficulty of early marriage, which creates loss of trained staff; this applies not only to nurses but to many other professions, particularly to the teaching profession. In addition, too many out-dated rules and regulations still exist in discipline. There is also the problem of recruitment of qualified nurses away from the hospital service into industry and into the local authority services.
I will not take too much time on Fay, the principal question raised by the Prices and Incomes Board Report, save t a make two comments. First, no one would dissent from the suggestions made for increasing pay, and even for increasing pay beyond the norm of 3½ per cent., since it is justified in this case. Apart from straight increases, however, pay can be dealt with by looking at the starting point on a grade. I am not sure that the hospital service, in recruiting staff nurses and sisters, takes advantage of the possibility of putting more highly qualified people, or those who are specially required to fill certain posts, on a higher grading than may be justified by their actual years of service.
Secondly, a differential between rates paid to nurses by some local authorities as against rates paid by the hospital service should not be encouraged, and the Minister should look at this. It seems wrong that local authorities should be able to recruit from the hospital service nurses trained by the service at a rate of pay higher than is paid by the hospitals.
Finally, on pay, the Minister should take very seriously the use of nursing employment agencies. The Prices and Incomes Board suggests the creation of a new set-up called the Supply Nurse Service. This is a reasonable suggestion, but, of course, it would be of no avail if employment agencies for nurses were allowed to recruit and supply nurses to the hospital service on a rate of pay very much higher than that paid by the hospital management committees.
Most people with any knowledge of this subject would accept that the attraction of the nursing profession to young people is not dependent upon a marginal financial return. Many other things act as deterrents against recruitment into the profession. First, the qualifications demanded by some teaching hospitals are way above the qualifications demanded by many other nurse training hospitals. Teaching hospitals which have a social cachet to them could take on a great many more nurses for training if they were to reduce the high standard of, in some cases, two A-levels at present demanded.
The proposal by the Prices and Incomes Board Report that the starting age should come down from 18 to 17 is long overdue. It has been resisted at the top level in General Nursing Council circles, despite the pressure which has been brought to bear in this House. It should be brought down to 17, and I hope that the Minister will say whether he intends to act on this proposal.
The hierarchy of nursing organisations have also resisted the introduction of cadet schemes. I know that cadet schemes exist in many of our training hospitals, but they are not given great encouragement. They are somewhat frowned upon. At the same time as the age of entry for training as a nurse is lowered, there should be introduced cadet schemes throughout the service. Recruits should be able to come in at the age of 16, straight from school. If a girl, who wishes eventually to become a nurse, gets a stop gap job until she reaches the necessary age of entry she often settles into this job and does not want to make the change later.
The Report also suggests that the training of nurses should be concentrated in a limited number of large training hospitals. I think that this would prove impractical. Many of our training hospitals need trainee nurses for the care of patients. Part of a girl's training consists in taking care of patients, and if they had to leave their present hospitals and these hospitals were deprived of recruits, this would make a difficult situation much worse.
We should actively encourage the recruitment of enrolled nurses. There has been a lukewarm reaction by the


nursing authorities to the wider use of enrolled nurses. There is danger of an apartheid situation developing within the profession on this. This is stupid, and does not help in the staffing of our hospitals. The Minister ought to make it clear that he intends to encourage an increased recruitment of enrolled nurses.
It is time that we ended the restrictive regulations which insist that a S.R.N. who goes on to take a maternity or other training course must suffer a drop in salary. This is undignified, apart from being financially damaging. A nurse who takes a course which will be not only to her advantage, but to the advantage of the service as a whole, should not have to suffer a loss of either status or salary.
Next, this is mentioned in the Prices and Incomes Board Report, and it has been dealt with by some of our hospitals, split duty shifts are a barrier to social life among the nurses. Young nurses are entitled to a social life, in the same way as is any one else. It is interesting to note that matrons and senior sisters do not work split duty shifts. The work of nurses should be organised on a rota system, so that those who have time off do not have to take it in the middle of the day. It is very difficult for a young nurse to go out with her boy friend if she is off during the middle of the day and he is working. This problem ought to be appreciated by those who organise shift working.
The Report has a good deal to say about the lack of staff at night and at weekends in hospitals. I think we should appreciate, however, that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot expect nurses to be given time off at hours that are socially advantageous if at the same time we call for full staffing in the hospitals during the night and at hours when perhaps there is not quite so much to do.
The sixth point I want to make concerns the living in of nurses, and this again is mentioned in the Report. I would think it reasonable that nurses in their first year should live in. It should be within the competence of the matron of a hospital to decide whether second year nurses should live in, but I am quite certain that third year nurses should be allowed—and indeed encouraged—to live out. Obviously apart from every-

thing else this cuts down the cost to the service of having to provide the accommodation.
The Report suggests that nurses in order that they may have more money for themselves they should pay for meals as they go, rather than pay a board fee which is taken from them. I have some doubt about this. I think it is important that the first year nurse who is working very hard—she is young and has just come out of school—should have her meals. She should not be encouraged to do what some university students do, to save money and not buy proper meals. Therefore, so far as the first year nurse is concerned, it seems to me that meals should either be provided free, or at least it should remain that limited board be taken off so as to ensure that the girl does get sufficient food to enable her to do her job.
Finally, there is the general attitude of the nursing hierarchy to the whole question of the treatment of nurses who are under training. This is still old-fashioned in certain places. We have got rid of the barrack square technique in the services, but nursing is still overlaid with a stiff-cuffed approach to training.
This is an irritant. The decision of a nurse as to whether she carries on her profession after she is qualified, I would say, takes place in the first year. If, therefore, the nurse becomes disenchanted in the first year she may well decide that she is going to grin and bear it. She is going to carry on with her course; come what may, she is going to complete it. Then she is going to get out.
The hospital service has got to recognise that in the training of a nurse it is important that there should be a modern outlook in both the spirit and the techniques of training. The modernisation of this system, which is pin-pointed in the Prices and Incomes Report, is something that has been pressed, as I said at the beginning, over many years, and the hospital service will get great advantage from any improvements the Minister can either impose or persuade.
If he takes the view that he ought to try to persuade, I would remind him that various Ministers have been trying to persuade the Royal College, the Nursing Council and others to improve their general attitudes towards training. It


may be, therefore, that we have now reached the position where action is needed by the Ministry direct. I hope that the Minister will not hesitate to take any such action in order to improve the situation for those who are already in the service, retain more of those who are going out of it, and recruit more of those who are looking forward to joining it.

11.20 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): I am not quite certain what the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) meant when he talked about direct action, because the statutory authority for nurse training rests on the General Nursing Council, which lays down the syllabus of training for each part of the register and the roll of nurses. My Department pays £4¼ million a year direct to the Council to help it to carry Out its responsibilities.
Training must be related to the patients' needs and must then reflect the changes in the organisation of care and the methods of treatment. I agree, therefore, that nurse training needs to be kept constantly under review. At no time since the National Health Service started has nurse training been so constantly to the fore. The syllabus which is the responsibility of the General Nursing Council was revised by what is known as the 1962 syllabus, based on greater integration between theoretical teaching and practical experience.
It might be thought that by 1968 the results of a syllabus introduced in 1962 should be settled, but training takes three years and involves the running of two systems for a time together and causes some dislocation of the organisation for allocating staff to wards. Therefore, constant review is desirable, but constant change is highly undesirable. Many of the suggestions put forward for improving nurse training involve the separation of schools of nursing from the hospital service, either to form independent entities or to be linked with the general educational system. I think that the implications of such proposals are not always realised.
Much is often made of the conflict between service and teaching requirements. However, much can be done within the existing framework to mini-

mise the effect of the conflict between service requirements and training needs, and many of the hospitals with the best training records have achieved a great deal in this respect. Guidance based on their experience was given in the memorandum on improving nurse education which was issued by my Department some six months ago. The measures suggested, which included a review of off-duty restrictions imposed on nurses, were endorsed by the National Board for Prices and Incomes, which thought that they should be followed up vigorously. I very much hope that hospital authorities will take these suggestions most seriously.
The reason I queried the hon. Gentleman's talk of direct action was that he will know that we must act through that statutory authority, the General Nursing Council. If we were to seek to follow the lines suggested by the Platt Committee, for example, as a means of completely eliminating all risk of conflict between training needs and service requirements it would involve making student nurses supernumerary to a very large extent in their first year and to some extent in their second year. Not only would this be very costly—and money spent on this would be at the expense of other developments in the hospital service—but it would also be expensive in manpower. Even accepting that replacement by equivalent numbers would not be required, it is likely that between 15,000 and 20,000 additional nursing staff would be required over and above those already needed to make good existing shortages and for the general expansion of hospital and community nursing services. I think it most unlikely that additional staff could be found to the extent required over the next few years.
It is quite possible to secure much revision and modernisation of nurse training within the existing framework of the syllabus; the key to this continuing revision and adaptation lies, I think, in close co-operation between teaching staff and those providing the service to the patient. We hope that the introduction of the Salmon proposals will clarify nursing management and, by fostering more efficient administration, will release ward sisters and nurses of assistant matron level particularly from non-nursing duties. It is important to remember that we have a great shortage of qualified nursing


tutors. We shall closely examine the proposals in the Report with a view to alleviating this discrepancy.
The hon. Gentleman referred to State enrolled nurses. It is, of course, essential that we have an adequate and settled qualified staff, including this category of nurses. Publicity has been aimed at recruiting more enrolled nurses, and the Report to which I referred drew attention to the fact that their contribution, relative to that of other qualified nurses, is increasing. A sub-committee of the Minister's Standing Nursing Advisory Committee is now considering the function in the National Health Service of State enrolled nurses.
We fully accept that it is necessary to watch continually to see if there is a need for changes in methods of teaching and for major changes in the content of the courses which would require changes in the syllabus. Section 12 of the Nurses Act, 1957, gives the General Nursing Council power to approve, with the Minister's agreement, experimental courses of training. Indeed, my Department recognises the need to encourage the trial of new types of training.
My Department gave information to hospital authorities and in September of last year my right hon. Friend announced that he would be prepared to give limited financial help to foster some experiments which the General Nursing Council thought worthy of trial. Some of these are already under way and they include some combining university degrees with training for registration and others using facilities at colleges of further education. Some are aimed at widening the nurses' background or to help them to obtain, in addition to their registrable qualification, a Diploma in Nursing or additional experience in management. The hon. Gentleman referred to the status of educational qualifications. I do not see much harm in what he suggested, as long as we get the nurses who are wanted; in any event, we should achieve as high a degree of educational level as possible.
In this connection, experiments in psychiatry will give students registration as nurses for the mentally subnormal and a qualification in the teaching of the mentally handicapped, or the qualification of Registered Mental Nurse with a

diploma in community nursing in the psychiatric sphere. This is an important matter because in the view of most people there should be a lead in pay for nurses specialising in this type of nursing.
There is a danger in too much experimenting without having a sense of direction and purpose. We must guard against this. My right hon. Friend offered the General Nursing Council finance to establish a small research section at the Council's office, where, in the course of the day-to-day administration of nurse training, the Council have material which would provide a sound basis for research. This offer was accepted by the Council. A research officer has been appointed and work has been progressing well. A joint steering committee, including members and officers of the Council and officers of my Department, has been set up to advise on the programme of work of the Council's new research unit. The General Nursing Council is not limiting itself to immediate needs. It has established a special sub-committee to consider long-term policy on nurse training.
The Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes also drew attention to the desirability of making some changes in nurse training and of speeding up other changes, such as the grouping of schools. One specific proposal it made was the reduction of the age of entry to 17 and a complementary reduction in the training of cadet nurses, who are paid and employed under conditions laid down by the Ministry. In our view, the reduction of age to 17 is, and has been in the past, fully supported by my right hon. Friend. Unfortunately we have not yet convinced the Council, although we intend to try to do so again.

Mr. Lewis: That is the nub of the whole question. The hon. Member said that I should realise that he and his right hon. Friend did not have power over many of these matters. He has repeated that he has to convince the General Nursing Council. That is the difficulty, and he must do something about it.

Mr. Snow: The hon. Member is suggesting carrying out a fundamental change in the responsibility of the G.N.C.


from a professional point of view. That is a fundamental question which cannot be discussed in such a short debate as this. We will examine any proposals that the hon. Gentleman puts forward, but there is a professional reticence and a professional attitude in this matter which it would take a great deal to change.

I do not say that reform is not necessary, but we should have to establish a much deeper investigation of the relationship of the profession with the political direction of nursing.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Twelve o'clock.